Posted on 04/03/2017 10:15:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was just a year ago when we first began hearing chants of “we need nine,” from former President Obama and Vice President Biden, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups.
To many of us, it appeared to be a simple case of amnesia. They obviously had simply forgotten that both Senator Reid and Senator Schumer had declared that George W. Bush would get no Supreme Court nominees through the Democratic Senate more than 18 months before the end of his term.
Or, even in 1992 when then-Senator Biden made clear his intentions in a long, detailed speech on the Senate floor outlining the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee of George H.W. Bush in his final year.
Despite this precedent, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups continued to demand—even after the election—that “we need nine.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, they may deserve nine years behind some bars made of some strong form of metal, but the rest would be hypocrisy.
This is an example of how the liberals view situations with shifting criteria, depending on what benefits liberals..
The liberals didn’t want Republican presidents to have a chance to appoint Supreme Court justices in their final year in office.
But to then it was OK for Obama to appoint someone with less than a year remaining in his term.
Bottom line that getting liberal judges appointed and preventing conservative judges is the goal of the Democrats.
And they will change their standards for how this all works depending on what benefits then at the time. There are no consistent standards with the liberals.
For democrats, history starts every day promptly at breakfast
that is exactly correct
they have no moral code. No “anchors” buried in reality
they are constant shape shifters..
moral chameleons.
The democrats would filibuster Jesus Christ himself. They are so bitter that (IMO), their multi-faceted plan had the most improbable ending.
Consider the untimely death of Justice Scalia...a republican seat open for Obama to capture the balance of the Supreme Court.
Republicans stall...no problem, because Hillary is already pre-ordained to fill the position. Senate loss..no problem, as the nuclear option would nary be given a second thought.
The only way the scenario could fail would be by the death of Hillary. There was zero chance of Donald Trump ever winning the presidency.
So...was there a specific purpose for the supreme court makeup? Is there a critical formulating case by the dems that is so important as to justify Scalia’s departure?
What’s next?
Sound reasoning by Charles.
Senate Judiciary takes up Rosenstein tomorrow, after Dems used long-established rules to delay his hearing for a week.
The Dems will stall by whatever means because Rosenstein will handle the Russian hoax investigation.
This hearing might be dramatic.
Some of the Rosenstein delay is related to his indictment of corrupt officials in Baltimore.
Corrupt Democrat officials, I’ll wager.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.