Oh yeah let me think of how many times democrats raised a fit and held the government budget hostage to force through garland and oh wait nope
If you think that Garland could have been held up for 300 days without a bloody peep in the media beyond relating it to the election, I've got a bridge to sell ya

If you want to see how much of an "objection" the democrats raised, just look at how often "Merrick Garland" was googled in those 300 days



This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 31 2017 08:10pm

seems plenty qualified

enjoy the 30 year seat

the Democrats would be against Merrick Garland if President Trump nominated him, such is their conviction

so your argument is that since the media failed to properly expose it as the scandal that it really is (although it was reported on plenty imo), that indicates the dems didn't care enough, right? actually makes SOME sense given their generally left bias, but is obviously highly subject to personal perception. such a blockade was unprecedented and even without said bias and party influence a story worth reporting, i just think it wasn't juicy enough for average americans...

do you think that expecting republicans to make the only reasonable and right decision to at least VOTE on a well respected and absolutely fair pick, instead of outright blocking it for a record breaking 300 days, is unreasonable or would you admit it's not and completely their fault? imo that fact alone defeats the idea of equal guilt in this matter (which i will admit you did not explicitly express but certainly imply).

i guess i don't even have to ask how the people's lack of interest to google his name (documented by a graph without any numbers, or comparably relevant topics) is connected to meeting your standard of insufficient "objection by democrats", do i?
like i said, i strongly reject the idea of equal blame for both sides, and i would 100% understand if the dems did everything to be equally petty about it, not that i expect them to have the same amount of disregard for the scotus (or the spine to pull that off for that matter)...

That would be A+ trolling.

i would enjoy President Trump retweeting Chunk Schumers tweet demanding better vetting of refugees and retinkering the visa program

Chief Warren has got you covered:

"Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans," Warren argued.

"He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care," she added.

..

"Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans – civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence."

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 31 2017 09:19pm

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Irony.

Wow this Gorsuch guy looks like a moron, just like Trump. Even I'm smarter than him.