I think you are correct in posting what Lindsey Graham said a couple years ago. Unfortunately people can change their minds. This isn't the me 2 movement when what you say 30 years ago gets you in trouble. But that's only when it applies to people who aren't democrats. Graham can change his mind. Just like you can. It doesn't mean he is a hypocrite or that you are. You have the right to change your mind.

riflebear said:

---

Cinque & Jinx just posted their reaction...
**Warning - language

---

Actually, those two are a pretty good argument for abortion!

FWBear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

FWBear said:

---

HashTag said:

---

FWBear said:

---

Such a bad idea to try to fill it now.

---

It's a bad idea to not try and fill it now.

For too many decades, the Republicans have tried to "lead" out of fear of what political ramification may (or may not) come about. They've been chickenchit long enough.

It's time to do their damn job.

---

Ask yourself this. Does China and Russia want Trump to nominate someone? The answer is Yes and the reason is because they want to destabilize this Country.

---

That's fully insane.

1. China is agitating for Biden.
2. Russian trolls were less effective than Arby's marketing teams and had no effect in any swing state
3. Making any domestic decision on someone's guess about what a third country wants is stupid. We decide our domestic policy.
4. Allowing another leftist to rape the constitution would be too (actually) damaging to our nation to allow.

---

You listed 4 statements/propositions that aren't related to the issues in my post in an effort to explain why MY post is insane?

---

You should read slower if you don't understand the immediate relevance of the post to your own. Take your time.

Canada2017 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

Not sure how it is political suicidal to get it done before the election. You may know more than I do. Please explain. Why better after election than before ? If it could be done.

---

Independent voters would be outraged about such an unseemly nomination process .

Trump better lay off for his own good .

Which is not in his character .

---

---

These are not normal times .

Let the PEOPLE decide through the ballot box .

Win or lose .

To do otherwise would only damage Republicans across the country .

---

I'm with Canada on this one. You have to weigh whether or not a guaranteed conservative judge (as much as can be guaranteed because some have moved center after being placed on the court) versus making it more difficult to hold the Senate or the White House for that matter.

I can't see anything more motivating tor Democrats (liberal or moderate) than to get payback on Trump and the Senate for rushing this through. You might be awakening a sleeping giant such that the true liberals who might not vote because Bernie isn't the candidate no longer care....just get Trump out.

blackie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

Not sure how it is political suicidal to get it done before the election. You may know more than I do. Please explain. Why better after election than before ? If it could be done.

---

Independent voters would be outraged about such an unseemly nomination process .

Trump better lay off for his own good .

Which is not in his character .

---

---

These are not normal times .

Let the PEOPLE decide through the ballot box .

Win or lose .

To do otherwise would only damage Republicans across the country .

---

I'm with Canada on this one. You have to weigh whether or not a guaranteed conservative judge (as much as can be guaranteed because some have moved center after being placed on the court) versus making it more difficult to hold the Senate or the White House for that matter.

I can't see anything more motivating tor Democrats (liberal or moderate) than to get payback on Trump and the Senate for rushing this through. You might be awakening a sleeping giant such that the true liberals who might not vote because Bernie isn't the candidate no longer care....just get Trump out.

---

I think Biden is going to win, 75% chance

I think Dems will control the Senate, 50-50. Schumer is talking about changing the rules to do away with the filibuster. Then Schumer wants to make Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, our 2 newest states, thus giving Dems 4 new senators and thus control of the US Senate for a long, long time. Then he wants to pack the Supreme Court.

We're talking fundamental change here.

I don't think the confirmation of a conservative judge will cost Reps the WH and Senate. I think that's going to happen regardless

Bearitto said:

---

FWBear said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

FWBear said:

---

HashTag said:

---

FWBear said:

---

Such a bad idea to try to fill it now.

---

It's a bad idea to not try and fill it now.

For too many decades, the Republicans have tried to "lead" out of fear of what political ramification may (or may not) come about. They've been chickenchit long enough.

It's time to do their damn job.

---

Ask yourself this. Does China and Russia want Trump to nominate someone? The answer is Yes and the reason is because they want to destabilize this Country.

---

That's fully insane.

1. China is agitating for Biden.
2. Russian trolls were less effective than Arby's marketing teams and had no effect in any swing state
3. Making any domestic decision on someone's guess about what a third country wants is stupid. We decide our domestic policy.
4. Allowing another leftist to rape the constitution would be too (actually) damaging to our nation to allow.

---

You listed 4 statements/propositions that aren't related to the issues in my post in an effort to explain why MY post is insane?

---

You should read slower if you don't understand the immediate relevance of the post to your own. Take your time.

---

I can't raise anyone's IQ by my posts. I can only put it out there. Can't understand it for you.

Looks like we are in for a crazy fight.

blackie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

Not sure how it is political suicidal to get it done before the election. You may know more than I do. Please explain. Why better after election than before ? If it could be done.

---

Independent voters would be outraged about such an unseemly nomination process .

Trump better lay off for his own good .

Which is not in his character .

---

---

These are not normal times .

Let the PEOPLE decide through the ballot box .

Win or lose .

To do otherwise would only damage Republicans across the country .

---

I'm with Canada on this one. You have to weigh whether or not a guaranteed conservative judge (as much as can be guaranteed because some have moved center after being placed on the court) versus making it more difficult to hold the Senate or the White House for that matter.

I can't see anything more motivating tor Democrats (liberal or moderate) than to get payback on Trump and the Senate for rushing this through. You might be awakening a sleeping giant such that the true liberals who might not vote because Bernie isn't the candidate no longer care....just get Trump out.

---

RBG dying already woke the sleeping giant w/ liberals. They will come out and vote just for her regardless of how bad Biden looks like now. Same reason Conservatives will also come out.

So you might as well push it through now knowing it's going to be the #1 voting issue regardless.

If I was a potential pick I don't think I would want my name put in the hat this time knowing my family would be completely destroyed and rioters would probably come to my home every night demanding I recuse myself. But judges are used to that so hopefully they pick a good one.

Just shut up lefties I guaran****intee that you lefties would be pushing for a nominee if the shoe was on the other smelly foot. Your hypocrisy is showing.

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Amazing:

---

More evidence that none of these ****ers (read all politicians) have any principles. Their values depend on whatever's politically expedient.

But the saddest part is that partisan voters are no better/different, and this thread is proof. Y'all don't even deny the hypocrisy. You're just OK with it if/when your team is winning. It's gross.

---

---

And just for the record, had Garland had a hearing and been confirmed as he should have been as a perfectly qualified and reasonable judge, I would be arguing the opposite now and defending Trump's right to appoint a justice.

I would love for all branches of government to get back to fulfilling their constitutionally defined roles -- especially congress, which has been ceding its duties to the executive for way too long. So in theory, I support the president's constitutional right to fill whatever supreme court vacancies occur during their term -- regardless of when they come open. But Mitch McConnell shat on the constitution in 2015. And to reverse course five years later because it's politically advantageous to his party would expose he and many others for the frauds they are and further divide a country that's already on the verge of splitting.

---

So, in one sentence you say that since Obama didn't get his way with Garland, the Trump shouldn't get his way with whoever. (okay, you actually said that if Obama got his way, you'd argue for Trump to get his way) - same difference. And I just don't believe you would.

Then in the next sentence you say that government needs to get back to doing their constitutionally duties.

Okay.

By the way, the country isn't on the verge of splitting... it's been split for quite long term now.

In "theory" you support a president's right to nominate? Either you support the right for Trump to nominate or you don't... The constitution is pretty damn clear.

With regards to McConnell... I supported his right in 2016 to make the decision he made and today I support his right to make whatever decision he makes. It's well within the rules for the Senate Majority Leader to decided the Senate's schedule.

To try and justify your position by using hypocrisy against McConnell is laughable. Even if McConnell voted on Garland in 2016, you liberals would be saying the exact same thing today about waiting until after the election - don't fool yourself.

---

The constitution was clear in 2016 too. And your boys shat on it. Own the hypocrisy or don't. I couldn't care less. Either way McConnell and his brood are giant ****ing hypocrites.

And that's not to say the Democrats aren't. They suck, too. I have no tribal allegiance to either of these ****ty parties. I hope they both burn. My only desire is competent, functional government, and that will NEVER happen as long as two corrupt, ineffectual parties continue the tit for tat partisan bull**** that has made Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi household names.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BayNavFreak said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

RIP RG

How does the timing of this death and subsequent nomination compare to M Garland?

---

Garland was nominated by Obama 8 months before the election. If someone is pushed through in a month? That's hypocrisy.

---

Obama was a lame duck President at the end of his second term. Trump has four more years. Not apples to apples.

---

If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, you'd be a gold medalist.

Either you support the constitution or you don't. And McConnell's antics in 2016 have put Republican partisans in an irreconcilable position. The Democrats are as well, but they didn't set the precedent.

BornAgain said:

---

I think you are correct in posting what Lindsey Graham said a couple years ago. Unfortunately people can change their minds. This isn't the me 2 movement when what you say 30 years ago gets you in trouble. But that's only when it applies to people who aren't democrats. Graham can change his mind. Just like you can. It doesn't mean he is a hypocrite or that you are. You have the right to change your mind.

---

If your mind conveniently changes when it's politically advantageous for you, you are a hypocrite. Just own it guys. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn here.

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is bald-faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Amazing:

---

More evidence that none of these ****ers (read all politicians) have any principles. Their values depend on whatever's politically expedient.

But the saddest part is that partisan voters are no better/different, and this thread is proof. Y'all don't even deny the hypocrisy. You're just OK with it if/when your team is winning. It's gross.

---

A lot has changed in 4 years, with the Democrats slide to the left.

And let's be honest: your just mad because a conservative gets to make the nomination.

---

I'm not mad at all. I don't have a problem with conservative judges. I think Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch have all been good justices.

What I have a problem with is bad, partisan governance, and a reversal of course by the Republicans on this issue will guarantee more of the same in perpetuity.

I'm not a political idealogue. I have no tribal allegiances. I just want functional bipartisan governance, and both parties -- and their devotees -- are all but guaranteeing I'll never get it in my lifetime.

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

---

Obama made his nomination. Trump will make his nomination. The rest is up to the Senate.

---

This is such a punt, though. It requires you to make no self-reflection on your party's obvious hypocrisy on this issue. As long as partisans on both sides refuse to acknowledge their own tribe's shortcomings/inconsistencies, we'll continue on this same unsustainable path we're on.

I just want you guys to admit that this exposes Mitch McConnell as a giant ****ing hypocrite. You don't even have to care. But you can't keep pretending that's not the case.

cinque said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Love her or hate her.......RBG was a brilliant, tough woman.

Held on long enough to win her final battle.......to be replaced after the 2020 election .

---

She may be replaced after the election, but you can take it to the bank that if Trump loses or the senate loses a Republican majority, that vote will take place before January.

---

That will only force the Dem's hand.

---

The one paying rioters, or the one stuffing ballot boxes?

cinque said:

---

Bret Kavanaugh is sitting in the Court. Stop whining like a little girl.

---

... and ever since he joined the Court, leftists have referred to the Court as illegitimate. The left does not respect the Constitution, the law, or any of the foundational principles of western civilization. Why would they when they get little pink boners as their skin brushes up against the well-worn cover of their copy of the Communist Manifesto?

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cinque said:

---

Amazing:

---

More evidence that none of these ****ers (read all politicians) have any principles. Their values depend on whatever's politically expedient.

But the saddest part is that partisan voters are no better/different, and this thread is proof. Y'all don't even deny the hypocrisy. You're just OK with it if/when your team is winning. It's gross.

---

A lot has changed in 4 years, with the Democrats slide to the left.

And let's be honest: your just mad because a conservative gets to make the nomination.

---

I'm not mad at all. I don't have a problem with conservative judges. I think Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch have all been good justices.

What I have a problem with is bad, partisan governance, and a reversal of course by the Republicans on this issue will guarantee more of the same in perpetuity.

I'm not a political idealogue. I have no tribal allegiances. I just want functional bipartisan governance, and both parties -- and their devotees -- are all but guaranteeing I'll never get it in my lifetime.

---

Yep. Elections have consequences

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Guys, the Democrats didn't set the precedent here. The Republicans did.

Lindsey Graham gives a perfect explanation of the situation above. What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016 was wrong. Period. Full stop. There is no constitutional justification for Mitch McConnell's actions. None. To rush a conservative justice through now is the type bald faced hypocrisy any way you slice it. Own that.

---

Brett Kavanaugh. Period. Ram the new nominee through speedily with a red hot poker.

---

Brett Kavanaugh was treated unfairly. I agree. But he got a hearing and was confirmed. Merrick Garland never even got the chance, despite being eminently qualified and constitutionally nominated. That's the precedent that we're talking about here.

For the record, I hate that the Supreme Court has become so politicized. These nominations shouldn't be weaponized and hearings shouldn't be partisan dog and pony shows. But both parties do it and have no apparent desire to end the practice. And as long as that's the case, it will continue.

---

Obama made his nomination. Trump will make his nomination. The rest is up to the Senate.

---

This is such a punt, though. It requires you to make no self-reflection on your party's obvious hypocrisy on this issue. As long as partisans on both sides refuse to acknowledge their own tribe's shortcomings/inconsistencies, we'll continue on this same unsustainable path we're on.

I just want you guys to admit that this exposes Mitch McConnell as a giant ****ing hypocrite. You don't even have to care. But you can't keep pretending that's not the case.

---

If Sotoro's socialist policies could have won him the senate the socialists would have Garland on the Supreme Court. His policies were turned back and the process worked. Just the way it is. It is what it is.

Thy said, I doubt they confirm a justice before the election.