Yertle the Turtle on the upcoming SCOTUS nomination

[Yssup Rider]

[i'va biggen]

[Yssup Rider]

Speaking of Turtles...

Are you a Turtle, Whiny? How about you, SLOBBRIN?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Speaking of Turtles...

Are you a Turtle, Whiny? How about you, SLOBBRIN?

If Obama would nominate a respected moderate, he might get that person through.

But if it is a liberal, transexual faggot loving ex-convict of color, just to prove a point, then that nominee will go down.

The moral of the story?

Fuck you, you filthy piece of shit.

[I B Hankering]

[gfejunkie]

Libs can't be shamed with their own hypocrisy.
They prefer to wallow in it...

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Speaking of

Urinal Lips...

[The Black Tornado]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Urinal Lips...

That shit don't make no sense

[Yssup Rider]

SLOBBRIN don't make no sense.

[CuteOldGuy]

This is such a non issue. Perfect for grandstanding and phony outrage. The President can decide to nominate someone or not. If he does, the Senate should hold hearings and vote. If the Senate doesn't like the nominee, vote no. This isn't that difficult. No matter who is nominated, the Court is going to find the Constitution to be much more flexible than in the past. It will be easier to regulate guns. Hate speech will be restricted. Government spying will become easier. It's all a joke.

People act like this matters. It doesn't. It's all a show.

[Yssup Rider]

Did you answer the question, Whiny?

Seems like this topic, while a "show" as you said, has brought out the anxiety from your ilk, Whiny turtle bitch.

[Guest042616-1]

Obama threatened to filibuster a specific candidate. The republicans are saying he shouldn't even do his constitutional and nominate anyone and that they will attempt to block any nomination.

These two things are obviously very different. One is a specific issue with a specific candidate, one is an outright rejection of any candidate without even knowing who they are and telling the president that he shouldn't even fulfill his constitutional obligations.

Schumer looks to be acting like the Republicans doing this now. Both are dopes. But I cannot look at what Obama has done and call him a hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination (with regards to SCOTUS nominations).

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Obama threatened to filibuster a specific candidate. The republicans are saying he shouldn't even do his constitutional and nominate anyone and that they will attempt to block any nomination.

These two things are obviously very different. One is a specific issue with a specific candidate, one is an outright rejection of any candidate without even knowing who they are and telling the president that he shouldn't even fulfill his constitutional obligations.

Schumer looks to be acting like the Republicans doing this now. Both are dopes. But I cannot look at what Obama has done and call him a hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination (with regards to SCOTUS nominations).

You're a clown with your head up Odumbo's ass. What 'threat'? Odumbo DID filibuster a nominee, and Schumer advocated not confirming any Bush43 candidates during Bush43's last sixteen months in office. You're just belligerently stupid if you don't recognize Odumbo, Reid and Schumer's hypocrisy.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a clown with your head up Odumbo's ass. What 'threat'? Odumbo DID filibuster a nominee, and Schumer advocated not confirming any Bush43 candidates during Bush43's last sixteen months in office. You're just belligerently stupid if you don't recognize Odumbo, Reid and Schumer's hypocrisy.

I was referring to the videos posted above, which posted Obama's threat to filibuster Alito. I did not mean to imply that he didn't follow through on the threat, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I will try to be more clear in the future.

I also explicitly noted that Schumer was acting like the republicans are acting here. So to claim that I see Schumer's hypocrisy doesn't make much sense, I totally agree with you. I just don't agree that it applies to Obama as well. Again, filibustering a specific candidate is so different from implying that Obama shouldn't nominate someone (despite the constitution giving him the power to do so), and then claiming they will block anyone when they don't even know who the candidate is yet.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by The Black Tornado

That shit don't make no sense

Thank You... TBT