Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Pit' started by The Degenerate Frog, Sep 18, 2020.
And how much does a vote count for with all the ballot harvesting?
No words for such an insensitive and foolish post.
Potential implications for a contested election wih a big mail-in ballot mess, whether the Pubs force a justice onto the court over the next 50 days or not.
It's always the mogog war that gets ya man.
The Senate doesn't EVER nominate the Supreme Court Justice!!!
They just wrote it down wrong. They meant 2021, not 2012
According to top D's, it MUST be filled...
Looks like about 9 words to me.
“The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”
-Hillary Clinton, 2016
“Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”
-Harry Reid, 2016
Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham less than two years ago: “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait til the next election.”
I believe he just said they would have the vote. Doesn't exactly mean confirmation. Mitch tossed a word salad on that one.
And, the people spoke. They clearly said that they do not want more leftist judges.
"Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in."
Barack Obama, 2020
So Obama clearly supports the idea of the Senate performing its advice and consent role, regardless of the timing. Right?
And if Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama got their way and then turned around 4 years later and did the complete opposite of what they said, that would be pretty hypocritical.
It would be incredibly shocking for a politician to be a hypocrite.
I understand politics is politics, but when it comes to the Supreme Court there has been somewhat of a gentleman’s agreement between the two parties for the last 100+ years. No one has increased the Supreme Court past 9 judges for a long time.
If the republicans rush through a new Supreme Court judge six weeks before the election, after four years ago saying Obama’s nominee couldn’t get a vote, the democrats are going to see that as cheating, and the gentleman’s agreement will be over. The next time the democrats get control of the presidency and the houses, why wouldn’t they just pack the court as the gentleman’s agreement will be over?
Cocaine Mitch will earn his bribes this week. Two RINO swine will vote against: Romney and Murkowski. The rest will bloviate, but stick with Mitch.
This is why you like to have a majority. Were the rats in the same position, the confirmation of a new Supreme would be done by the end of the month. And you know it.
So if being in a majority is all that matters, why shouldn’t the democrats just stack the courts next time they have the majority and the presidency?
They are talking about it even now.
It is a far different thing to act within the bounds of one's responsibilities, than to alter a long-established order and system. The Republicans could have done so from 2017 up to 2019, but they didn't. Likewise, neither did the rats from 2009-'11, although they did saddle us with an increasingly awful medical system in a midnight vote on the way out the door.
Remember: It was Harry Reid who did away with the filibuster of Judicial appointments. McConnell warned him at the time that he would rue the day he did it, but Reid wasn't interested in the long-term consequences of his actions.
Much respect for RBG’s service and dedication, and her strength over the last several years battling cancer.