RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

There are no "rules." It's just policy.

And since you obviously need a reminder, Obama was a lame duck president when he appointed Garland. Big, big difference.

So let’s hold off on a vote until after Nov. 3, at which point Trump may very well be a lame duck too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

There are no "rules." It's just policy.

And since you obviously need a reminder, Obama was a lame duck president when he appointed Garland. Big, big difference.

Incorrect. Scalia died on February 13, 2016 and the following day, McConnell announced he would not consider any nominee. It was unprecendented to announce im advance that no nominee would be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

Biden changed the rules when he made approving a Supreme Court justice a political football. He was the first one to hold hearings where the nominee was attacked. Before Biden, most SC justices were approved almost unanimously.

Not true, there were controversial nominees before. Some made it through like Thomas, and some didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

There are no "rules." It's just policy.

And since you obviously need a reminder, Obama was a lame duck president when he appointed Garland. Big, big difference.

McConnell said it was a rule. So now you are saying there is no rule. So now are denying changing the rules and changing them at the same time.

[Anonymous]

After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Then expect the Dems to do the same. Gloves are off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

There are no "rules." It's just policy.

And since you obviously need a reminder, Obama was a lame duck president when he appointed Garland. Big, big difference.

What policy? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:National polls are useless. The only states that matter are AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, and FL. That's were the race will be decided. RBG's death may help Trump in the coming few weeks, especially if he nominates a well-qualified woman with a solid background. However, I doubt he pulls enough support to eek out a victory over Biden.

With that said, it's more likely than not that Biden's victory won't be a landslide. The Dems may take control of the Senate, but if they do, it's likely to be a 51-49 majority or 50-50 with the VP tie-breaking vote.

A narrow Biden victory gives the GOP enough political ammunition to place the Trump nominee on the Court before the end of the end of the year.

I know some liberals want to expand the court next year, but I don't think they'll have the votes or support to do it.

Five states should not decide the presidency. The people in those five states are no better than anyone else.

Electoral college needs to go.

+1

And for those saying "CA shouldn't decide the election" how do you feel about Republicans in California being disenfranchised?

[Anonymous]

And for those saying "CA shouldn't decide the election" how do you feel about Republicans in California being disenfranchised?

They are not disenfranchised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

Biden changed the rules when he made approving a Supreme Court justice a political football. He was the first one to hold hearings where the nominee was attacked. Before Biden, most SC justices were approved almost unanimously.

Wait, what? Maybe the GOP should have put forward someone other than Bork, who, by the way, had a vote.

And maybe Clarence Thomas should not have persecuted one of his female employees. And you know what? He had a vote.

Do you know who didn't get a hearing or a vote? Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Thomas and Kavanaugh are on the court. So basically your excuse is that one nominee 35 who didn't make it 35 years ago makes it okay to do anything now. Or, you are sore winners.

[Anonymous]

RBG's last wish and her previous statement are at odds. Some are asking if it has been verified that her "last wish" was really hers.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, "That's their job," the New York Times reported.

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good.

"Eight is not a good number," she said, the Washington Post reported.

Let's honor her verified statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everybody does realize that RGB was for President Obama filling the seat back in 2016. Saying it was the Senates job and that the President does not not stop being President in his last year. Everyone is just mad that it will be a conservative judge. I bet there is not one of you liberals that supported keeping Obama’s nominee off the court.

... In which case Merrick Garland would be on the bench right now. But he’s not because Rs changed the rules. Now they want to change it back when it suits them. That’s the issue here. Rs can’t do anything without being cheating, lying, hypocrites. Do you really not see the issue here?

Biden changed the rules when he made approving a Supreme Court justice a political football. He was the first one to hold hearings where the nominee was attacked. Before Biden, most SC justices were approved almost unanimously.

Wait, what? Maybe the GOP should have put forward someone other than Bork, who, by the way, had a vote.

And maybe Clarence Thomas should not have persecuted one of his female employees. And you know what? He had a vote.

Do you know who didn't get a hearing or a vote? Merrick Garland.

+1. The Senate was never meant to be a rubberstamp on the nominee of the President's choosing. The Senate has a responsibility to hold a vote. McConnell and Senate Republicans failed in that responsibility, utterly refused to do their jobs, because they did like the outcome they knew would come from a legitimate process. McConnell knew Garland had the votes (including necessary Republican votes), but he defied our Constitution anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Then expect the Dems to do the same. Gloves are off.

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford)
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees

As far as I know, the only shenanigans that the Republicans have pulled is the Garland incident. I’m not saying at all that that was okay, but suggesting that the Republicans are the bad guys here is delusional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Then expect the Dems to do the same. Gloves are off.

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford)
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees

As far as I know, the only shenanigans that the Republicans have pulled is the Garland incident. I’m not saying at all that that was okay, but suggesting that the Republicans are the bad guys here is delusional

Demonstrably false? Not sure you know what that means.

Do you know why Reid removed the filibuster?