You must be referring to complaints by some about Obama’s mustard choices.
Nope. If Thomas can be damaged by his hearings, then he’s too mentally fragile to be put in to a position. You guys exposed him to danger he could not handle. That’s cruel.
No one damaged Obama with any kind of mustard comments. The only thing that was damaged was someone’s credibility.
1 Like
You’d have to ask them.
But it’s an irrelevant response to my post.
Which specific person on the forum “damage him?”
then your argument is with senate precedent which was set in 1826.
been through this before. the number of nominees for the high court that have not had a hearing in an election year dwarfs the number who have. especially when the senate and president are from opposing parties
You mean 1828 I assume?
The precedent there seems like you don’t nominate SCOTUS justices as a lame duck.
Obama as not a lame duck in March 2016.
1 Like
false. there have been many nominations for vacancies opened in the last year of a presidency. 2 were consented to by the senate and one of those was already on the court and elevated to chief justice. the rest never got a vote.
Actually, it just shows what a bunch of kooks the dems are…
How many nominees for vacancies were left without a hearing and a vote in the last year of a presidency?
from memory, it was 18. could have been more or maybe one less.
I’d be skeptical about your memory. It’s already been faulty on this topic.
1 Like
Libs true colors are shining…and it ain’t pretty.
But yet forum libs are proud of this behavior.
be skeptical of whatever you wish. i did the research, i posted the graphs. as i recall it was either 17 or 18 nominees nominated to a seat that opened in the last year of a presidency. all but 2 did not get a vote and one of them was elevated from associate to chief justice. and, the practice of even having hearings is relatively new. i believe it was started in 1929 and after that didn’t happen for several years again. maybe once before that in the mid 1800’s.
The Senate ignoring a nominee was wrong in 2016 and it is still wrong in 2018.
And yes I know I’ll piss off people on both sides for being consistent. Tough.
26 Nominees in the 3rd year of a President.
5 “No Action” in the entire list.
0 “No Action” in over 130 years.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.>>>>
1 Like
There’s not a precedent. That’s a creation by the right-wing to try to justify not following normal procedures for seating a presidential nominee.
You’re right-we’ve been through this before, and it ended with no predecent ever being proven or established.
I am skeptical. In just the 20th century, three justices were nominated and confirmed in presidential election years.
Troll thread is myopic.
Which specific people?..
People who voted for Democrats that helped to make Democrats the majority party in the senate in the 102nd congress in 1991.
Dems completely lost their credibility when they allowed Robert Byrd - the former KKK member - to remain the President Pro Tem while Thomas’ hearing was conducted… a hearing that Thomas called a high tech lynching.
NEVER pretend that Democrats support the advancement of African Americans. Byrd pulled out the KKK tried and proven accusation against a black man that was used in many lynchings… the charge of being a promiscuous black man. Byrd used this charge against how many sons and fathers before he finally got his chance at the uppity black man Clarence Thomas? It was then that I realized that Democrats simply traded in iron chains for economic chains to keep the black man oppressed.
Every person here who voted for a Democrat in that Congress shares the blame.
