BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Also agree, completely.BaylorBJM said:BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
100% agreed. Blue star.
A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Doc Holliday said:A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
70% of these (43 Justices) were confirmed in *under 46 days* (the amount of time remaining until the Nov 3 Presidential election).
What precedent?
70% confirmed under 46 days...including Ginsburg.HuMcK said:
Jesus christ you really gonna pretend not to remember Mitch McConnell words and actions from 2016 (who am I kidding, the pursuit of power is all the right cares about and nothing else matters)?? That precedent. Do you not ever get tired of adopting obviously contradictory positions just based on opportunity? How many of that 70% were confirmed less than 2 months before a Presidential election? I'm betting none of them.
McConnell will get a confirmation done, but he probably drives up dem turnout and signs his own walking papers doing it. And you know what? Don't cry after Dems do exactly what they warned you they would do as reciprocation. If McConnell breaks his word (he's already said he will), Dems will keep theirs.
HuMcK said:
Ok, don't cry when Dems carry out their threat and expand the court then. This all assumes McConnell has the votes for it, with Murkowski being a no already I think that only gives him 2 or 3 more to lose.
43HuMcK said:
I asked you a direct question: how many were this close to an election?
GOP won the senate and executive.HuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
Appears 7.HuMcK said:
43 out of 61 justices were nominated and confirmed less than 50days before an election? That's news fo a bunch if historians. Either you are too dumb to understand the question or just a lying.
paid protesters... thats why so many of them are found in multiple cities. They are paid to stir it up. Easy money trail but whatever...HuMcK said:
Yes they have managed to cement minority rule using those institutions. And y'all wonder where all the unrest comes from...
If democrats take over, they plan to pack the court anyway. They're pissed that they didn't get their way over KavanaughHuMcK said:
Ok, don't cry when Dems carry out their threat and expand the court then. Of course this is only a possible scenario because McConnell previously removed the filibuster from SCOTUS noms, hence the "ram through". This all assumes McConnell has the votes for it, with Murkowski being a no already I think that only gives him 2 or 3 more to lose.
You think America has sold out to the Russians? That's funny considering the democrats have sold out to ChinaHuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
i am confused... schumer said dont on Twitter and then posted to do it on Twitter?George Truett said:Right.Doc Holliday said:link to tweet:Jack and DP said:
So the consistent thing for McConnell to do would be to wait until after the next inauguration to vote on a justice.
I agree on Amy Barrett, would be great choice.ShooterTX said:I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
Absolutely agree. Do your job and then let the Senate fight it out.HashTag said:I agree on Amy Barrett, would be great choice.ShooterTX said:I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
But aside from that election argument
Like Obama in 2016 who nominated a justice, Trump should do the same. It's not up to Trump to confirm the nomination, that's on the Senate, but it his job to put forth a nominee.
In an election year, a court vacancy has occurred 29 times in our history. A person was nominated each and everyone one of those times. Trump has a duty and should nominate someone.
HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Is this a serious post?HuMcK said:
They believe so, just like you believe Trump's incompetence and naked corruption are somehow good for the country. Good for the country would be Trump/McConnell saying they will wait to confirm a nominee, or hell Trump could even nominate Merrick Garland, who was suggested to Obama by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But they don't care what's good for the country, they care about power. This exact moment is what they sold America out to the Russians for, they aren't gonna waste this opportunity, because this time next year they might have prosecutors ramming the law up their asses.
It's gonna be equally fun watching Democrats support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs agoHuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...