Democrats’ Armageddon Option
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
A libtard saying the Dems don’t play dirty...
That’s rich.
It is possible if they skip hearings and just vote instead. There really is no need for hearings. It is just bullshit political theater,
Last edited:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...confirm-a-scotus-nominee-before-the-election/
Watch: Mitch McConnell Debunks Democrat ‘Myth’ There Isn’t Time to Confirm a SCOTUS Nominee Before the Election
Watch: Mitch McConnell Debunks Democrat ‘Myth’ There Isn’t Time to Confirm a SCOTUS Nominee Before the Election
Agreed, Dems should do the same when they install the four extra judges in January. One judge per day.
Tell me the last time Dems rushed through a judge six weeks prior to an election, inbred Trumptard.
What I don't follow yet, and maybe they have not figured it out yet is this:
Yes, the republicans are determining that Collins, Murkowsky, maybe Romney are not in favor of voting to confirm before the election and would not support a motion to do that.
But that is not necessarily the same as saying that they would abstain from voting if the majority votes to go before the election. You know they are saying they are not in favor of doing it before the election but they vote everyday on matters that they think should not have been voted out of committee without fixing this or that, so they have to decide whether they are going take their ball and bat and go home or vote and be counted.
No punchline there. Just saying I would need to see how that shakes out before concluding that collins or murkowsky's statement shake out. I have heard it reported almost as though they will not vote for a nominee before the election just because they do not support having a vote until after the election. I dont think we know that yet. As I said, senators lose on all sorts of procedural matters everyday but then just go forward on the larger issue.
Yes, the republicans are determining that Collins, Murkowsky, maybe Romney are not in favor of voting to confirm before the election and would not support a motion to do that.
But that is not necessarily the same as saying that they would abstain from voting if the majority votes to go before the election. You know they are saying they are not in favor of doing it before the election but they vote everyday on matters that they think should not have been voted out of committee without fixing this or that, so they have to decide whether they are going take their ball and bat and go home or vote and be counted.
No punchline there. Just saying I would need to see how that shakes out before concluding that collins or murkowsky's statement shake out. I have heard it reported almost as though they will not vote for a nominee before the election just because they do not support having a vote until after the election. I dont think we know that yet. As I said, senators lose on all sorts of procedural matters everyday but then just go forward on the larger issue.
You and your stupid predictions. It is delusional. You probably have more failed predictions than anyone else on this board. Are you a professional tarot card reader?
I’ll tell you the last time they plotted a coup against a democratically elected President, braindead Libtard.
And what rush? Isn’t Trump President? Isn’t this his job? Or is Ruthie’s niece going to be the decider on this one?
HAhahahahahahahahah.........taking a breath.......blahanaahahahahahahahhaha
Dems are soooooooo fucked.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...me-court-trump-amy-coney-barrett-b522344.html
‘We’ve got the votes’: Lindsey Graham confirms Senate GOP have support to push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before election
“We’re going to have a process that you’ll be proud of. The nominee is going to be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and we’ve got the votes to confirm the justice on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming,” the South Carolina Republican said.
Last edited: