RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Whatever. You know full well why she clung to life and didn't resign these past few months. You also know that she didn't believe in unfair rules or "rules" that disadvantage women.

[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

Oh no, the Democrats didn't want a guy who left his pubic hair on a coke can that he gave to the woman he was sexually harrassing to be on the Supreme Court, how could they!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

yes

[Anonymous]

“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Well, no, because they didn't give him a fair hearing. So what's good for the goose...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Easy to say after the shenanigans from 2016. More Republican handwaving and hyprocisy. The Republican party is dying. We can only hope the country doesn't go down with it.

Also, why in the sam hill does Trump think it's a good idea to seat a supreme court justice now - doesn't he realize it's better to hold it out as a reason to re-elect him? Mark my words, if Ginsburg is replaced pre-election, Trump goes down by epic, historic margins. The "family values" voters won't bother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be stated, but if Garland had gotten a fair hearing then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You realize how the Republicans are acting right now is the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do"?

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be." - Mitch McConnell, 2016

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Obama said if they didn't give him a fair hearing, then they would break the process. They didn't give him a hearing, so, they broke the process. Democrats can't do anything about it now, Republicans already broke it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Whatever. You know full well why she clung to life and didn't resign these past few months. You also know that she didn't believe in unfair rules or "rules" that disadvantage women.

So whatever is okay as long as it goes along with the democrat's talking points however much they are sanctimonious.

got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork Bork had hearings and a vote, but didn't pass the senate
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time Thomas had hearings and a vote
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees Cite?
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford) It wasn't fully vetted. I am more concerned about his perjury and financial disclosures that were lacking, but hey, he had a hearings and a vote
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees Because McConnell brought Obama's nominations to a halt, impacting the third branch of our goverment

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

You are wrong and misinformed. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

I want you to quit following whatever rule happens to work in your favor at the moment.

[Anonymous]

So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Well, since Mitch changed the rules and DIDN'T give Garland a hearing or vote, things changed. Or do you simply want to gloss over facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

And a closer reading from Collins suggests she is perfectly fine with a lame duck vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Obama said if they didn't give him a fair hearing, then they would break the process. They didn't give him a hearing, so, they broke the process. Democrats can't do anything about it now, Republicans already broke it.

Seems like Democrats are perfectly exulted that the process is broken however much the Republicans want to fix it.
Why do the democrats want to keep the process broken?