Google "is blah blah blah unprecedented"

The answer is no. The thought that Senate will not consider lame duck nominations is long standing

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

Critics—who concede that the Senate can refuse to approve Supreme Court nominations—argue for an atextual requirement that the Senate must refuse its consent through  formal procedures. But nothing in the Constitution requires this, and the Senate’s longstanding practice has included many failures to take formal action on nominees.

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/text-of-senator-schumers-speech

Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this:

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.  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.

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least:  I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances

Chuckie Schumer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/history-political-fights-over-supreme-court-seats/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/

“There is this tendency to view history through rose-colored glasses from time to time, and to suggest we’ve never been this political,” says Charles Gardner Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University and author of the 2008 book When Courts and Congress Collide. “In reality, we have always had a highly politicized selection process.” Several times in the 1800s, Geyh says, “the Senate certainly appears to have delayed with an eye toward saving the nomination for the next president.”

Also from that Smithsonian article: "Despite the stolen Supreme Court seats of the mid-1800s, says Geyh, the modern Senate's outright declaration that no Obama nominee would get a hearing or vote in 2016 still violated the Senate's norms. None of the tabled nominees of the 1800s were federal judges like Garland, whose qualifications the Senate endorsed in 1997 by confirming him for his appeals court seat, 76-23. "You've got a consensus choice," says Geyh, "which makes it all the more bald-faced that the Senate would do as it did."

Lots of chaotic SC crap went on in the mid-1800s--that's why these "norms" were established in the first place.

I admit it was not literally unprecedented--I only checked the 20th century nominees. And indeed nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to vote on nominees. Even so, norms have a place--if it weren't for them, the Dems could have blocked Eisenhower's, Nixon's, and maybe Reagan's picks since they controlled the Senate for 52 out of 62 years from the 30s to the 90s; the GOP could have done the same to Bill's nominees. Each side understood that if one broke the norm, it'd start a race to the bottom. Aging justices would always retire while their party controlled the other two branches so the makeup of the SC would stay locked no matter whom the people vote in. How about electors? Nowhere in the Constitution does it require they follow the popular vote, so I'm sure it's fair if they choose anyone they want!

So yes, these things aren't set in stone, but they most certainly have a valid purpose.

4 - Everyone probably believes in some sort of ideal society and others even think it is possible. I'm atheist so I have zero issue with you desiring me heaven or hell, but we can see your intentions of bad outcome for someone that disagree with you.

Apparently you missed my dig against religion.  I was calling all religion fantasy and people that believe in religion are living in a life of fantasy. I was making fun of all that think their religion is right and they are going to a place with streets of gold, mansions, etc... when they die while all other non believers are damned to hell.

Let's just agree that no one us is going to change each others mind.  I hate all established parties but I certainly hate republicans far more than any other party because they are a party of douchebags and fuck heads.  Just look at their leaders and almost all their representatives they are all douches.  I present to you McConnell and Ryan.  I rest my case.

SInce I understand your other points I'll just say that I like Democrats even less because not only they are also douchebags they try to put themselves on high moral pedestal.

Your post ishilariously incorrect and self righteous y

Cosby,Conyers, clinton,Schneiderman,wienstine, Franken,Rosee, Jesse Jackson, SpadeWienerl, Levin all sayhi. Just off the top of my head. i

Absolutely this.

I am an outsider to American politics, but I am beginning to understand more and more why Trump won. Had I been American I would have certainly not voted for Trump in 2016, had the election been today, I might have, not sure. His views (lies) about global warming and his promises about putting Clinton in jail would probably still be a turn-off for me - at least the latter turned out to just be a 'sick joke'.

The main reason Trump won and the reason he will win in 2020 is that the democrats allow less and less room for nuances in thinking. The radical left has a lot of power over the whole left in American politics. Any deviation from their mindset and you will be called all different kinds of things and will not be welcome in hollywood or a lot of other places, and a lot of 'reliable' media will quickly label you alt-right or something worse.

Also the whole victimization of black people (this includes black lives matter) and women that the radical left is practicing, along with the collective guilt put on white people (especially men) is extremely dangerous to the society.

If the moderate left in the US does not wake up and seperate itself from the political correct fanatics of the radical left, they will not stand a chance against republicans.

Some of the same issues are also seen in other western countries. One of the worst examples is Canada, which passed the Bill C-16, the most radical restriction on freedom of speech we have seen in any western country since WW2. Also UK suffers from left wing fanatism, especially in the media. Other western countries are doing better, but the problems are still deeply present.

George H.W. Bush (groper in chief), Roy Moore, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, Donald Trump

I can keep going also if you want.

At least they try and pass some laws here and there that actually benefit the average citizen instead of being completely fake like republicans who only pass bills in favor of the highest donor.  Republicans are completely sucking on the tit of corporate America while putting on complete bullshit front of actually caring about the average citizen.

So go ahead and support your corporate whores.