LogFAQs > #922806702

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles
Forceful_Dragon 06/05/19 1:16:57 AM #348:	red sox 777 posted... Forceful_Dragon posted... red sox 777 posted... If you want more justices, win more elections. Remind me who won the 2012 election again? I forget. I must be confused because I thought it was Barack Obama. That can't be right because there's no way they would have blocked a nomination for over 20% of a presidential term. Barack Obama. And the Republicans won the 2014 Senate elections. You need the Presidency and the Senate to place a new justice on the Supreme Court. And it's almost like every other time when the President and Senate majority were from opposing parties, the Senate still approved the reasonable nominations from the President. And then this shit happened: Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress. The nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, the longest nomination process in the history of Supreme Court nominations. Your arguing in bad faith is noted. --- ~C~ FD https://imgur.com/dGDfxaw <cite>Forceful_Dragon posted [p:922806702] in Politics C... [t:77728181]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Forceful_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>If you want more justices, win more elections.</quote> Remind me who won the 2012 election again? I forget. I must be confused because I thought it was Barack Obama. That can't be right because there's no way they would have blocked a nomination for over 20% of a presidential term.</quote> Barack Obama. And the Republicans won the 2014 Senate elections. You need the Presidency and the Senate to place a new justice on the Supreme Court.</quote> And it's almost like every other time when the President and Senate majority were from opposing parties, the Senate still approved the reasonable nominations from the President. And then this shit happened: <quote>Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress. The nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, the longest nomination process in the history of Supreme Court nominations.</quote> Your arguing in bad faith is noted. --- ~C~ FD https://imgur.com/dGDfxaw</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1