One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
White House: GOP afraid of Garland's credentials
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Mar 20, 2016 05:37:00   #
Progressive One
 
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM
A White House spokesman said Senate Republicans refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because he would prove to the world his worthiness for the position.
"They know somebody that has Chief Judge Garland's intellect and experience is going to preform quite well in the setting of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing," press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday. Republicans don't want him under oath, on camera "because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great Supreme Court justice; and that is why Republicans are resisting hearings."
Garland, who leads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, deserves hearings and Senate confirmation v**e immediately, Earnest said.
He repeatedly said the Senate should not wait until an expected lame-duck session after the p**********l e******n.
"It's not as if the Senate is doing a bunch of important business right now," Earnest mocked GOP Senate leaders. "So they can't really complain that they got some … crowded agenda they have to get through."
Earnest also dismissed the notion that Obama would withdraw Garland's name if a Democrat wins in November.
"The president is proud to have nominated him and the president will stand by him and urge the United States Senate to confirm him promptly," Earnest said. "There is no good reason that anybody can articulate that the Senate should delay consideration of his nomination until the lame duck," Earnest said. "That would be irresponsible."

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 06:03:35   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM
A White House spokesman said Senate Republicans refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because he would prove to the world his worthiness for the position.
"They know somebody that has Chief Judge Garland's intellect and experience is going to preform quite well in the setting of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing," press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday. Republicans don't want him under oath, on camera "because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great Supreme Court justice; and that is why Republicans are resisting hearings."
Garland, who leads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, deserves hearings and Senate confirmation v**e immediately, Earnest said.
He repeatedly said the Senate should not wait until an expected lame-duck session after the p**********l e******n.
"It's not as if the Senate is doing a bunch of important business right now," Earnest mocked GOP Senate leaders. "So they can't really complain that they got some … crowded agenda they have to get through."
Earnest also dismissed the notion that Obama would withdraw Garland's name if a Democrat wins in November.
"The president is proud to have nominated him and the president will stand by him and urge the United States Senate to confirm him promptly," Earnest said. "There is no good reason that anybody can articulate that the Senate should delay consideration of his nomination until the lame duck," Earnest said. "That would be irresponsible."
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM br A... (show quote)


Martin and Lewis,Abbott and Costello now we have the new comedy team of Obama and A Democrat in 2016 sewer rats for Gen X.😹😹😹😹😹😹 Trump in 2017

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 06:49:23   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
Garland is anti-Second Amendment based on his history. He was a supporter of DC's gun prohibition scheme.

After all, oliar has already had the pleasure of appointing 2 anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS. Why would he do any different this time?

Reply
 
 
Mar 20, 2016 07:17:04   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
buffalo wrote:
Garland is anti-Second Amendment based on his history. He was a supporter of DC's gun prohibition scheme.

After all, oliar has already had the pleasure of appointing 2 anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS. Why would he do any different this time?


Obama would give up one of his kids before he would nominate a moderate judge.

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 07:53:31   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM
A White House spokesman said Senate Republicans refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because he would prove to the world his worthiness for the position.
"They know somebody that has Chief Judge Garland's intellect and experience is going to preform quite well in the setting of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing," press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday. Republicans don't want him under oath, on camera "because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great Supreme Court justice; and that is why Republicans are resisting hearings."
Garland, who leads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, deserves hearings and Senate confirmation v**e immediately, Earnest said.
He repeatedly said the Senate should not wait until an expected lame-duck session after the p**********l e******n.
"It's not as if the Senate is doing a bunch of important business right now," Earnest mocked GOP Senate leaders. "So they can't really complain that they got some … crowded agenda they have to get through."
Earnest also dismissed the notion that Obama would withdraw Garland's name if a Democrat wins in November.
"The president is proud to have nominated him and the president will stand by him and urge the United States Senate to confirm him promptly," Earnest said. "There is no good reason that anybody can articulate that the Senate should delay consideration of his nomination until the lame duck," Earnest said. "That would be irresponsible."
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM br A... (show quote)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's so simple that it hurts. No real AMERICAN wants a c*******t in the Supreme Court or any other position of political power. Every real American is happy the pubbies are - at least so far - actually performing one of the jobs they are paid to perform: doing their constitutional duty re appointments to the SCOTUS. They SHOULD have worked to keep Obama out of the WH, but they fell down on their duties in that case, and that was a hell of a mistake. Now we know what happens when a c****e or a Muslim is in charge of anything.............everything that speaks "America" is defiled.

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 07:54:59   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Hemiman wrote:
Obama would give up one of his kids before
he would nominate a moderate judge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe you're right. Do we KNOW that he has any kids, though?

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 08:16:37   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe you're right. Do we KNOW that he has any kids, though?


He says he they are his and we all know he wouldn't lie.

Reply
 
 
Mar 20, 2016 08:33:11   #
Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas
 
A Dumb Spook In 2016 wrote:
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM
A White House spokesman said Senate Republicans refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because he would prove to the world his worthiness for the position.


KuntusNimrodicus,

The title of this thread is what proves you stupid.

No one is afraid of this pip squeak, Merrick Garland.

No one is afraid of The Clinton wench.

No one is afraid of you spooks.

No one is afraid of Obammy.

No one is afraid of a poor dumb spook like you.

We're just fed up with having a dumb q***r spook in the Whitehouse.

And soon he will be gone, but you spooks will have gained nothing.

And The Clinton wench will give you nothing but more free cheese......................SPOOK !!!

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 08:46:46   #
JMHO Loc: Utah
 
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM
A White House spokesman said Senate Republicans refuse to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court because he would prove to the world his worthiness for the position.
"They know somebody that has Chief Judge Garland's intellect and experience is going to preform quite well in the setting of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing," press secretary Josh Earnest said on Friday. Republicans don't want him under oath, on camera "because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great Supreme Court justice; and that is why Republicans are resisting hearings."
Garland, who leads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, deserves hearings and Senate confirmation v**e immediately, Earnest said.
He repeatedly said the Senate should not wait until an expected lame-duck session after the p**********l e******n.
"It's not as if the Senate is doing a bunch of important business right now," Earnest mocked GOP Senate leaders. "So they can't really complain that they got some … crowded agenda they have to get through."
Earnest also dismissed the notion that Obama would withdraw Garland's name if a Democrat wins in November.
"The president is proud to have nominated him and the president will stand by him and urge the United States Senate to confirm him promptly," Earnest said. "There is no good reason that anybody can articulate that the Senate should delay consideration of his nomination until the lame duck," Earnest said. "That would be irresponsible."
By NICOLE DURAN (@DURANNI1) • 3/18/16 3:15 PM br A... (show quote)


Nice try libtard, but you're not getting your fifth libtard on the Supreme Court, so get over it.

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 08:55:25   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
Hemiman wrote:
He says he they are his and we all know he wouldn't lie.

Sure enough. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 09:19:54   #
robmull Loc: florida
 
buffalo wrote:
Garland is anti-Second Amendment based on his history. He was a supporter of DC's gun prohibition scheme.

After all, oliar has already had the pleasure of appointing 2 anti-gun justices to the SCOTUS. Why would he do any different this time?









The secular liberal progressive "Marx/Alinsky," "bring America to (her) knees" agenda, buffalo, is dead in-the- water if they can't disarm America. And typical of "liberalisms" agenda of deception, it has backfired every time. When Japan decided it would be foolish to attack America's mainland, "because there was a rifle behind every blade of grass" [Isoroku Kamamoto], the anti-American secular liberal progressives started the "gun control" process to make sure that the next time a foreign government attacked America "WE" would be defenseless.

And, much like all the radical secular liberal progressive assault on guns created a virtual stampede to the gun stores, the assault on "THE DONALD," has created a virtual stampede to the Trump campaign. So now, like there are at least 3 rifles behind every blade of grass, there are a few Trump supporters in front of all of those "blades."

Reply
 
 
Mar 20, 2016 10:55:21   #
Progressive One
 
Wolf counselor wrote:
KuntusNimrodicus,

The title of this thread is what proves you stupid.

No one is afraid of this pip squeak, Merrick Garland.

No one is afraid of The Clinton wench.

No one is afraid of you spooks.

No one is afraid of Obammy.

No one is afraid of a poor dumb spook like you.

We're just fed up with having a dumb q***r spook in the Whitehouse.

And soon he will be gone, but you spooks will have gained nothing.

And The Clinton wench will give you nothing but more free cheese......................SPOOK !!!
KuntusNimrodicus, br br The title of this thread ... (show quote)


No one is scared of a white trash dirty peckerwood that uses the word spook online but is too much of a pussy to use it in person, so spook away pussyboy.

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 11:09:11   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
No one is scared of a white trash dirty peckerwood that uses the word spook online but is too much of a pussy to use it in person, so spook away pussyboy.

How can he possibly call you a spook in person when you hide behind your alias, "A Democrat In 2016"? Show yourself, and maybe you can HEAR him call you a spook. Better to be called a "spook" than a "pussyboy" and "peckerwood". Maybe YOU should apologize??

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 11:09:32   #
Tasine Loc: Southwest US
 
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
No one is scared of a white trash dirty peckerwood that uses the word spook online but is too much of a pussy to use it in person, so spook away pussyboy.

How can he possibly call you a spook in person when you hide behind your alias, "A Democrat In 2016"? Show yourself, and maybe you can HEAR him call you a spook. Better to be called a "spook" than a "pussyboy" and "peckerwood". Maybe YOU should apologize??

Reply
Mar 20, 2016 11:15:40   #
Progressive One
 
Tasine wrote:
How can he possibly call you a spook in person when you hide behind your alias, "A Democrat In 2016"? Show yourself, and maybe you can HEAR him call you a spook. Better to be called a "spook" than a "pussyboy" and "peckerwood". Maybe YOU should apologize??


Stop drinking and or taking pills.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.