RBG passed

elderado said:
True dis. TBH, I don't know why the libs are so worked up over her death. She had her opportunity for a rat to replace her, and chose poorly.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecke...he-needed-to-do-was-what-anthony-kennedy-did/
More...

When she was asked in an interview with the NYT in 2016 if the Senate should consider Merrick Garland’s nomination ahead of the election, her answer was:

“That’s their job. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”




Whoa! Now there's an inconvenient little quote from Ruthie right there.

And it counters my assertion yesterday wherein I said that I doubt very much that she has ever looked at the Constitution or even owns a copy.

It could be though that she has one of those New Testament Revised Constitutions for Democrats and her copy says there is nothing in the Constitution that says a Democrat President stops being President in his last year. Yeh, that's probably it.
 
Radical left Democrats, (are there any other kind these days), making threats may force me to rethink my position on the timing of these appointment.
The hypocrisy argument is a good one, but making the threat of do it our way or else has me thinking, okay MF'ers, let's just see what or else is. Way tired of these threats of chaos and violence when these bastards don't get their way. Might just be time for a long overdue knockdown battle, the bloody kind.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Radical left Democrats, (are there any other kind these days), making threats may force me to rethink my position on the timing of these appointment.
The hypocrisy argument is a good one, but making the threat of do it our way or else has me thinking, okay MF'ers, let's just see what or else is. Way tired of these threats of chaos and violence when these bastards don't get their way. Might just be time for a long overdue knockdown battle, the bloody kind.
More...
yes, I'm sure that's it, not the fact you're a spineless hypocrite just falling in line. Couldn't even last 48 hrs huh?

CaptainObvious said:
I'll call it right now. There will not be an appointment or even a vote to replace her prior to the election. Republicans don't have the vote to make that happen. Moderates won't support it, and as if it matters, neither would I. It can and should wait for the election results.
What will happen is both parties will be lighting a fire under their base as this election is now more important than ever, and it is
More...
 
Here4money said:
yes, I'm sure that's it, not the fact you're a spineless hypocrite just falling in line. Couldn't even last 48 hrs huh?
More...
Your reading comprehension is poor as usual. I'm not there yet, but leftists like yourself keep making threats of do it our way or else and I'm likely to call the bluff. Let's see what your Army of lunatics has really got.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Your reading comprehension is poor as usual. I'm not there yet, but leftists like yourself keep making threats of do it our way or else and I'm likely to call the bluff. Let's see what your Army of lunatics has really got.
More...
I'm a moderate who's issued no threats. I also don't fall for reddit/twitter posts which may as well be bots for all I know.
 
BeautifulStranger said:
Certaintly a lively discussion.

In my opinion, the best course of action is to wait until after the elections before appointing a new Supreme Court justice for the following reasons:

1. Mitch O’Connell said in 2016 there should be no appointments so close to an election. Honesty and integrity are fundamental aspects of our justice system. Nominating a justice through a lie, taints that justice and the court, much less O’Connell, Trump, and Senators voting for that justice’s nomination. Many senators are attorneys. A group of attorneys abiding by such behavour taints the legal profession and by extension, the Universities they came from.

All for what? So a Supreme Court justice can be nominated a few months earlier?


2. Ruth’s dying wish. While some may feel the act of dying should not entitle someone with a premptory challenge to our political process, the fact is, both sides respected her. How can you say you respect someone and then in the same breath say you are not going to honor their last wish? Especially when it does not prevent the Supreme court from functioning?

3. Trump may not win reelection. Appointing a new Supreme Court justice seems like it is stepping on the toes of the incoming administration. Seems like an act of bad will to me.

4. There may not be enough time to thoroughly vet a potential appointee due to other obligations of Senators during election season.

5. Appointing a new Supreme Court justice escalates partisanship to the point of insubordination of voters by both sides. We need the leaders of the respective parties to have a truce from excessive partisanship, respect the Constitution and its intent, follow long established traditions based on sound principles, and focus on finding ways to better represent the people.

A person of character has died. We need someone to step up and show character, even if it hurts, and put excessive partisanship aside.
More...
Point one I agree with.
Point two is irrelevant. Dying wishes aren't how we fill vacated positions and it's not her decision to make.
Point three may or may not happen and "good will" between the parties left the building a long time ago.
Point four. I have no doubt every administration has a couple throughly vetted candidates on hand at all times for just such circumstances.
Point five. Partisanship is the game and it's only going to get worse.
In closing, point one is the only solid argument for waiting and Democrats are blowing that with their threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top