RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

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

Put down the crack pipe, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

And for all the soft Republicans who were thinking of going Biden, this is going to firmly tip them into supporting Biden. Naked hypocrisy may be okay with pure cons, but no one else supports it.

[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.

We can wait six short weeks to find out if that’s the case. If Trump wins the election, then his pick can be confirmed after the election. If he loses, then per the McConnell rule, it should wait until after Inauguration Day.

[Anonymous]

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

I'm not trusting Susan Collins to save the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Add Murawski and Romney

[Anonymous]

Yes we are doing this!!! Viva Christo Rey!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes we are doing this!!! Viva Christo Rey!

Jesus is weeping seeing this.

[Anonymous]

The cringe gen Xers and boomers who think gen Z kids are going to "riot" and "take to the streets" over this are hilariously out of touch. Here are the sort of viral memes gen Z are sharing:

[Anonymous]

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

Yes I think there will be a lot of anti catholic hysteria. Violence against churches in Europe and the US has spiked. Check out the stats.

Get off Breitbart before you addle what little is left of your brain.

+1 When I see this level of stupidity I do understand why Trump has supporters like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But she never actually does. She wrings her hands in public and then lines up and votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Add Murawski and Romney

Then who's the 4th?

[Anonymous]

Video circulating of Obama; constitutional duty of president to fill vacancy; constitutional duty to senate to consider.

He’s got a Harvard law degree and I think he even taught con law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

And for all the soft Republicans who were thinking of going Biden, this is going to firmly tip them into supporting Biden. Naked hypocrisy may be okay with pure cons, but no one else supports it.

+1. I voted yesterday but this just increased my disgust with what my party has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes we are doing this!!! Viva Christo Rey!

Stop embarrassing the sane Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Add Murawski and Romney

Then who's the 4th?

Gardner seems most likely