quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

From the senate 'leaders' [sic]

Senator Mitch McConnell once said his party’s most important task was to deny Obama a second term. In February 2009, he wrote a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, saying there could be no action on Obama’s nominees pending a long list of demands, including completion of reviews by the Office of Government Ethics. McConnell only escalated when Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 and by last year he was refusing even to consider any Supreme Court nomination Obama might make.

.....it’s certainly looking as if McConnell’s Republican Senate majority will do a complete about-face and rush through Trump’s appointments without the process on which senators used to insist.

Unfortunately, not all of these candidates have been through the customary vetting process. Last week, the Office of Government Ethics informed congressional Democrats that it had not yet had time to screen all of the Trump appointees, which created “potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues.” Democrats want to delay some hearings until the candidates can be vetted.

McConnell’s response to Democrats’ concerns has been typically cynical and hypocritical.

This year, he’s telling Democrats to “grow up.” “All of these little procedural complaints are related to their frustration at having not only lost the White House, but having lost the Senate,” he said on Sunday.

Ethics review is hardly a “little procedural complaint,” especially since the Trump camp reportedly did far less than previous presidential transition teams to vet candidates before nominating them.

Of course, since Trump won’t clear up the endless conflicts of interest involving his business interests and those of his children and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, whom he is appointing to a senior White House role, why should we expect him to be concerned about his appointees’ conflicts?

HERE

I guess the American people just don't need to know about such things as congressional and executive ethics.

Then there is this if you can even imagine:

So what about the “bully pulpit” that the presidency is going to give Trump once he takes office? The problem is that we are not supposed to take anything that Trump says seriously.

The problem, according to Trump’s chief propagandist, Kellyanne Conway, is that people are actually paying attention to what Trump says.

Imagine that, the American people actually paying attention to what the P-elect actually says. What dummies. He is after all...a republican.

“You always want to go by what’s come out of his mouth,” Conway sneered. Instead, she said, we should all “look at what’s in his heart.”

Oh gee, imagine that, we are not supposed to 'go by what comes out of his mouth ?' Look at what's in his heart ?

But that's the problem.

The sad truth is, we’re never going to know. We will never be able to trust what Trump tells us about his principles, his policies and his intentions as president, if he bothers to tell us anything at all. Mostly, we’re all just supposed to read his mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

It's not Republicans or Democrats that are hypocrites.
It's politicians

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

It's not Republicans or Democrats that are hypocrites.
It's politicians

Lol... Yes of course... hypocrites only exist in the world of politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Senator Mitch McConnell once said his party’s most important task was to deny Obama a second term. In February 2009, he wrote a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, saying there could be no action on Obama’s nominees pending a long list of demands, including completion of reviews by the Office of Government Ethics. McConnell only escalated when Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 and by last year he was refusing even to consider any Supreme Court nomination Obama might make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

It's not Republicans or Democrats that are hypocrites.
It's politicians

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

It's not Republicans or Democrats that are hypocrites.
It's politicians

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Senator Mitch McConnell once said his party’s most important task was to deny Obama a second term. In February 2009, he wrote a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, saying there could be no action on Obama’s nominees pending a long list of demands, including completion of reviews by the Office of Government Ethics. McConnell only escalated when Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 and by last year he was refusing even to consider any Supreme Court nomination Obama might make.

Your fake news source fails to mention that Harry Reid never replied to that letter and that the letter was sent AFTER seven Obama picks had already been approved by Congress

And it was a Democrat Senator Schumer who first promised that a lame duck president would never get a SC pick, when Bush was president

So, what you are bitching about, is Democrat tactics being employed by Republicans

Which is fair play

Because it's just turnabout

And that makes YOU the hypocrite, not the Republicans

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Senator Mitch McConnell once said his party’s most important task was to deny Obama a second term. In February 2009, he wrote a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, saying there could be no action on Obama’s nominees pending a long list of demands, including completion of reviews by the Office of Government Ethics. McConnell only escalated when Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 and by last year he was refusing even to consider any Supreme Court nomination Obama might make.

Your fake news source fails to mention that Harry Reid never replied to that letter and that the letter was sent AFTER seven Obama picks had already been approved by Congress

And it was a Democrat Senator Schumer who first promised that a lame duck president would never get a SC pick, when Bush was president

So, what you are bitching about, is Democrat tactics being employed by Republicans

Which is fair play

Because it's just turnabout

And that makes YOU the hypocrite, not the Republicans

quote:

...During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his....

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz4VQ5ezOIQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Republicans are hypocrites because they want to play by the rules the Democrats have been playing under

quote:

but the Democrats are pure as the driven snow for saying that only they can play by those rules.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Republicans are hypocrites because they want to play by the rules the Democrats have been playing under

No, they are hypocrites for not playing by the rules they tried to force democrats to play under.

quote:

but the Democrats are pure as the driven snow for saying that only they can play by those rules.

No one said anything about democrats being pure. If the democrats are clamoring for ethics review requirements that they themselves didn't require with Obama appointments, they, too, would be hypocrites.

Constantly defending one party's actions because the other party did it before them is only going to result in both parties shirking the rules with no end. There has to be a time when the majority party decides it's going to play by the rules first. It doesn't matter which party, imo, as long as one does it. Nothing will get solved until the parties start playing by the rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

ALL Republicans are doing, is employing Democrat tactics.

Stew in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Senator Mitch McConnell once said his party’s most important task was to deny Obama a second term. In February 2009, he wrote a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then the majority leader, saying there could be no action on Obama’s nominees pending a long list of demands, including completion of reviews by the Office of Government Ethics. McConnell only escalated when Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014 and by last year he was refusing even to consider any Supreme Court nomination Obama might make.

Your fake news source fails to mention that Harry Reid never replied to that letter and that the letter was sent AFTER seven Obama picks had already been approved by Congress

And it was a Democrat Senator Schumer who first promised that a lame duck president would never get a SC pick, when Bush was president

So, what you are bitching about, is Democrat tactics being employed by Republicans

Which is fair play

Because it's just turnabout

And that makes YOU the hypocrite, not the Republicans

Politico: .....which one source told POLITICO did not receive a response at the time from then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), weeks after the Senate confirmed seven senior Obama nominees on his first day in office.

One source not named and which nominees...also not specified.

Hotair: Roberts and Alito got hearings and votes and are on the court so.....?

Bush 2 Obama 0 since Scalia dies.

As for the second Google:

From mediamatters: REALITY: Schumer Urged Senate To Gain Sufficient Information On 2007 Nominees, Not To Refuse To Consider Them Before They Were Named

Schumer Objected Not To Timing Of Nominations, But To Nominees Themselves And Lack Of Information About Them. A February 15 CBS report explained that Schumer's comments "stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed" Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court:

Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court.

"It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed," Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait." He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench.

He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. [CBS, 2/15/16]

Plus, one cannot compare a no vote on a nominee with not even bringing any nominee to any vote. Apples to oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So Republicans are hypocrites because they want to play by the rules the Democrats have been playing under

No, they are hypocrites for not playing by the rules they tried to force democrats to play under.

quote:

but the Democrats are pure as the driven snow for saying that only they can play by those rules.

No one said anything about democrats being pure. If the democrats are clamoring for ethics review requirements that they themselves didn't require with Obama appointments, they, too, would be hypocrites.

Constantly defending one party's actions because the other party did it before them is only going to result in both parties shirking the rules with no end. There has to be a time when the majority party decides it's going to play by the rules first. It doesn't matter which party, imo, as long as one does it. Nothing will get solved until the parties start playing by the rules.

Well said, DS. Thank you.