[Hoot Gibson]

Lol boys, it is going to plan. Lets look up at the top of the thread. So far, so good.

Hoot; President Obama appoints a judge. Judge does not get hearing.
During an election President Trump appoints judge, judge gets hearing, during an election.
Now logically Hoot says Constitution grants that right to the current president.
However, logically the constitution does not apply in the first case because party affiliation is different. Exactly where was that in the constitution?

Point is boys, there is nothing you can ever say without being a pure hypocrite other than, my party is in charge and that is the way it is.

Now just remember that has a consequence as well. Anyway have a great week.

There was nothing unconstitutional about the Senate withholding its consent to Obama's Supreme Court nominee and there was nothing unconstitutional about the Senate confirming Trump's nominee in 2020. In every case where there has been a vacancy and the same party has controlled both the White House and the Senate, the incumbent president has appointed a Supreme Court Justice and the Senate has confirmed the appointment. Elections have consequences. Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have retired in time to have allowed Obama to appoint her successor. She was very fortunate to have survived as long as she did after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She was a selfish woman.