RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Will a Barrett nomination cause the left to lash out at Catholics? I am scared this morning for my safety.

Are you serious right now??!

- A Jew who thinks you’re crazy

+1

Those who shoot up houses of worship are right wingers.

Not always true and Catholics are particular targeted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/cathedrals-in-6-states-damaged-by-violent-protests-91111

Oh that’s why Catholic Churches have so much security ... wait no that’s synagogues.

Just stop. You should be standing up for Jews, but you won’t.

I do stand for Jews! I think security for synagogues is very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Will a Barrett nomination cause the left to lash out at Catholics? I am scared this morning for my safety.

What? More Catholics are Democrats than Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

Harrison will use that quote (it's on video) in every ad between now and election day.

[Anonymous]

Remember Trump was impeached and the justification of the GOP was let the people decide his fate in 9 months. Now they are out here letting a man that was not removed under that premise pick a lifetime appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break... if the dems held the senate they would ABSOLUTELY confirm a new SC judge. Stop with the drama.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

The Dems can be fair -Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break... if the dems held the senate they would ABSOLUTELY confirm a new SC judge. Stop with the drama.

Well said!

How is it well said? The dems didn't hold up a vote for 10 months to steal a seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems can be fair -Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh. . .

All received votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Will a Barrett nomination cause the left to lash out at Catholics? I am scared this morning for my safety.

People on this thread certainly are.

[Anonymous]

Collins has basically gone on record saying she won’t vote for Amy Barrett because she won’t follow precedent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

If Trump was in his last term, you would be correct. It might not be the Presidents last year, so it’s not the same.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

If Trump was in his last term, you would be correct. It might not be the Presidents last year, so it’s not the same.

Nope. Y'all don't get to play this game. Bunch of hypocrites and liars who will do anything for power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Collins has basically gone on record saying she won’t vote for Amy Barrett because she won’t follow precedent

Collins doesnt matter. She'll be allowed to vote no.