Mitch says he will try to fill any Supreme Court opening in 2020

[Cuddles]

AAA has given the correct answer: Obama was lame duck, whereas Mitch is entitled to presume that his party's president will be re-elected even if it does not happen.

Now that AAA has given the correct answer, I will add to it by giving a politically incorrect answer: ie. don't even fucking talk to me about the morality of this or that or the various procedural civilities and expectations that should prevail AFTER WHAT WAS DONE TO KAVANAUGH. If Trump loses the election and a justice dies the next day, I would do everthing possible to ram another justice in in the last couple months even if Trump loses. I would extract the absolute total possible retribution for what they did to Kavanaugh. And dont anyone even bother to argue that it would set a precedent such that the dems will do this or that if they are in power. We know what the dems are going to do regardless. They will turn down no chance to knife either republicans or established processes or courtesies at anytime, anywhere so no one should be trying to earn protection.

Mitch started it....plus Kavanaugh wasn't entirely cleared

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Mitch started it....plus Kavanaugh wasn't entirely cleared

How did Mitch start anything?

Oh, I see, by following the Biden rule. Nevermind.

 

[Cuddles]

How did Mitch start anything?

Oh, I see, by following the Biden rule. Nevermind.

The "Biden opinion", which the GOP re-wrapped and marketed as "rule". You know, like "DOJ guidelines" and "constitutionality".

 

[Tsing Tao]

If this situation were to happen, all rules will go out of the window. The moment Dems take Senate and WH, they will dilute the court with more Justices guaranteed. Hope Mitch realizes it. Not good for our country in any shape or form.

You mean like when Harry Reid killed the filibuster? Sure. The Democrats never warped the rules for their own use.

 

[Cuddles]

You mean like when Harry Reid killed the filibuster? Sure. The Democrats never warped the rules for their own use.

You make it sound like Obama had a reasonable Congress

 

[RedDuke]

You mean like when Harry Reid killed the filibuster? Sure. The Democrats never warped the rules for their own use.

Could be wrong, but wasn't filibuster killed for judicial appointment because republicans completely blocked almost all Obama's nominees? But he did not touch SCOTUS. It was Mitch who decided to remove it for SCOTUS. Now if Mitch gets a chance to do what he said he would, Dems will retaliate with more Justices.

And the winner is ......????????

Very sad how divided we became

 

[Tsing Tao]

Could be wrong, but wasn't filibuster killed for judicial appointment because republicans completely blocked almost all Obama's nominees? But he did not touch SCOTUS. It was Mitch who decided to remove it for SCOTUS. Now if Mitch gets a chance to do what he said he would, Dems will retaliate with more Justices.

And the winner is ......????????

Very sad how divided we became

Your last sentence is exactly my point, and at odds with the rest of your comments.

Instead of saying "they broke the rules because they had to but you guys are doing it because of the wrong reason" just say all breaking of the rules is wrong.

You may argue Harry Reid did it because the GOP was obstructing, but when Mitch did it, it was wrong to do so (which is ridiculous - he did it for the same reason Harry did it and both were wrong to do so).

 

[Tsing Tao]

You make it sound like Obama had a reasonable Congress

And you make it sound like Trump does.

The division never ends until you folks see both sides for the problem that they are.

 

[Cuddles]

And you make it sound like Trump does.

The division never ends until you folks see both sides for the problem that they are.

You're trying to paint the judicial nominees as equally qualified. It's a false equivalency to say unqualified stooges are on par with experienced judges. In other words, the democrats opposition does not lack standing, unlike "one term" McConnell's

 

[Wallet]

The problem today, we live in a deeply divided culture where the end result, i.e. my party’s wants, justify the means. Regardless of what rules or law stand in the way. The left can cry and whine all they want but they are just as guilty in the past of stepping over any line that presented itself to acheive their politicsl goals. And any backlash over “we didnt do that” was only because they were never presented with the need to cross said line. Both parties are just as guilty of seeking their own agenda over the best interests of the country via compromise. Neither side will give an inch.

Todays political climate is like a precession, slowing wobble violently swinging back and forth farther and farther from the center. Eventually it crashes.

If the right wins, the left’s opposition grows, the left wins the right’s resolve strengthens. Because neither will acknowledge the opposition. Instead they are demonized.

Personally, I don't see a happy ending.