Dude asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 month ago

Did you know Justice Ginsburg said this in 2016?

"Nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat. That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year"  

SUCK IT LIBS! 

Update:

@rodcom ... But the democrats didn't control the senate... Those little details LIBS leave out... Oh and the republicans still control the senate... LMAO!! Check mate!! 

Update 2:

@Juana -- The rules democraps made up.... Forgot that little detail... LMAO! 

Update 3:

@Anonymous -- it wasn't a precedent. The democrats did it under Clinton first... Don't know much do ya... 

Update 4:

@Less Than Spam ... You still don't get it. The democrats did this first under Clinton when they controlled the Senate.. This is called pay back.. Deal with it. Karma is a real SOB! (Thus how Ginsburg got nominated. This should go without saying but you libs are really f-ing stupid.) 

Update 5:

@Anonymous... You are really proving how friggen stupid you libs are. President Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on June 14, 1994 JUST BEFORE THE 1994 ELECTIONS!!! 

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    That's true -- nothing "in the Constitution" blocks there from being a nomination.  What blocks the nominee from joining the court is the decision that Mitch McConnell made in 2016 that there should be no confirmation votes in Presidential election years.

  • James
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    That is true, just like it is true that Republicans chose to ignore her then, if they are not lying hypocritical douchebags, they will stick to the “Biden Rule” Moscow Mitch claimed to deny Garland a hearing.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    "The democrats did it under Clinton first"? Care to elaborate? I will wait.

  • 1 month ago

    This is correct . . . nothing in The Constitution says that BUT your duplicitous Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated in 2016 (as far as Obama's chance to install a Supreme Court Justice): "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." 

    What Ginsburg's opinion is has NO bearing on the actual process, while McConnell and his cohorts make the actual decision. At least own up to the fact that McConnell is being hypocritical.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    And then McConnell went ahead and ignored her statement, setting a new precedent in the Senate that a president could nominate a SC candidate, but that the Senate should not bring it up for approval in an election year. Is he going to go against his own precedent? If he does, he will not be reelected in Kentucky, and will confirm for all time in the history books that he is a scumbag.

  • Juana
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    That was true until Republicans changed the rules.

  • rodcom
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    Yet that is exactly what Republicans did to Obama, so they should expect the same thing back.  So suck it.So you are saying that McConnel is a hypocrite then, since he was the one who said that there should not be a nomination process in an election year?  So far, there appear to be enough Republican senators who are opposed to the idea, recognizing the hypocrisy, so it will not happen.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.