A Long List of GOP Senators Who Promised Not to Confirm a SC Nominee During an Election Year

Jesus Christ. I don't think you can be any more clear here. The most blatant form of hypocrisy.

 

On the real: I had posted that The Turtle would wait 24 hours before talking about a new justice, but he didn't make it 2 hours. He is only motivated by power; there's nothing even resembling a principle left in that shell (hahaha) of a "man."

 

Grassley knows a thing or two about the process. Interview in May 2018 below.

"it takes about 60 days from the time the President selects somebody, for our staff and the democrats' staff, to go through all of the opinions some other nominee has written and to vet them and then you have to have a hearing, that is a week. And then you have to let it lay over for two weeks and then you vote on it and then it goes to the floor. And so it takes about 70 or 80 days. "

Assuming Trump select a nominee in 10 days as the WH said they will, that leave about 35 days before the election.

He also said he wouldn't fill the vacant spot if it's 12M away from the 2020 election. He also said "you can't have one rule for democrat presidents and another rule for republican presidents."

http://www.iowapbs.org/iowapress/story/30617/sen-charles-grassley

 

rob portman, hypocrite:

In 2016, with a Democrat as president:

“I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere,” Portman wrote. “Awaiting the result of a democratic election, rather than having a nomination fight in this contentious election-year environment, will give the nominee more legitimacy and, as then-Senator Biden pointed out, better preserve the institutional credibility of the Senate and the court.”
"At such a time, we should also care about the legitimacy of the court as an institution, the credibility of this key lifetime appointment and the process through which this key nominee is considered. With a spirited and partisan presidential campaign well underway in the last year of a president, the question is whether this is the right time to go through what would be a highly contentious process with a very high likelihood the nominee would not be confirmed, or is it better to let the people have a voice through their choice for president and have a nominating process in a less partisan atmosphere? I acknowledge this is not an easy question to answer, but I think there is a wisdom in this leader’s words: It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me …we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-op-ed-best-way-replace-justice-scalia

In 2020, with a republican president:

“In the more than two dozen vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court during a presidential election year in our nation’s history, the sitting president made a nomination in every single case. Leader McConnell has said that he will hold a vote on any nominee President Trump sends to the Senate, and I intend to fulfill my role as a U.S. Senator and judge that nominee based on his or her merits. The president was elected in 2016, in part, based on a commitment to nominate men and women to the judiciary who would fairly and impartially apply the law and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, not advance public policy goals by legislating from the bench. Likewise, in both 2016 and 2018, the American people have re-elected a Republican Senate majority to help President Trump fulfill that commitment. “In 2016, when the vacancy occurred following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, I said ‘the president has every right to nominate a Supreme Court justice … But the founders also gave the Senate the exclusive right to decide whether to move forward on that nominee.’
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-statement-supreme-court-vacancy-0

 

Graham is a man of God? Hmmm

 

Apples and oranges. Republicans now control the Presidency and the Senate. That wasn't the case for the Democrats in 2016.

....and if you want to talk hypocrisy, go read Chuck Schumer's tweets from 2016... #doyourjob! pwn3d.

 

I saw WY Sen. John Barrasso on Meet the Press and talk about twisting yourself in knots over this. He is now arguing a "Biden Rule" that doesn't exist regarding the Senate and Presidency in different parties. Leaving aside the fact that Republican Senators in 2016 weren't talking about Biden Rules in 2016 just about the people should have a say in the election, for them now to argue on the basis of what Biden and other Democratic senators have said is ludicrous. They've don't what Biden and other Democrats have said and certainly don't cite them as precedent in other situations.

 

this is the new talking point we're hearing from the trumpublicans. "well it was different in 2016...we controlled the senate". no s*** sherlock!

its not only hypocritical, but is also an acknowledgement that they are doing this b/c they can. its not about being fair or consistent.

10 months before an election was too soon in 2016, but 2 months is just fine in 2020. give me a f***ing break!

jorge, if youre going to call schumer a hypocrite than you must admit that the republicans are also hypocrites (i would argue much bigger ones). for you to not acknowledge their hypocrisy is hypocritical, even by your incredibly low, partisan-hack standards.

 

Extend your analysis back 100 years. Look at where the president and the senate were held by the same party. 2016 that wasn’t the case. Sorry you don’t like the result.

 

i dont like hypocrisy and double standards, which is what you and the trumpublicans are engaging in on this issue.

why is schumer a hypocrite, but mcconnell, graham, ect are not?

 

Just saw that Murkowski has said she doesn’t support appointing a new justice until after the election. If she, Collins, Romney and one more Republican also agree then there won’t be a majority.

Getting another Republican Senator to agree is going to be tough and I’m not sure what other Republican will agree. For that matter I’m not sure if it really came down to it whether Collins or Romney will actually not support a nominee until after the election.

 

Collings absolutely will try and put in another judge. I wouldn't count her as even a possibility to disagree with Trump. Romney could go either way. I believe he would also support appointing the Justice now.

I believe even getting the ones you mentioned to oppose it will be difficult.

 

I actually think it will be easier to get more Republicans to delay the vote until after the election. I think McSally, Collins and Gardner are dead senators walking but they might just push waiting until after the election as a desperate move. The lame duck session is after the election so they could still vote for anTrump nominee. Further if they’ve lost while McSally will be gone Gardner and Collins will still be there In the lame duck and at that point no longer have to worry about their races.

 

Because in 2016 the same party didn't control the Presidency and the Senate. Now they do.

 

Nancy Pelosi refuses to rule out second impeachment of Trump to delay Supreme Court battle

‘We have arrows in our quiver,’ House Speaker says in warning to president and Mitch McConnell

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...urt-battle-b507574.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

Do what you gotta do...forget integrity, principles, or fairness. Barr alone has done enough to be impeached.

 

There have been 29 SCOTUS vacancies in an election year. There were also 29 nominations.

 

With new scientific progress and advancements allowing babies to survive earlier and earlier during a pregnancy, history will not look back kindly on the abortion era.