RBG Politcal Discussion

[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.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[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?

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?

Seems like Republicans heard the feedback from Democrats and are willing to fix the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I've dealt with malignant narcissists before. The key to defeating one is to ignore their BS and do whatever you think is right no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There needs to be 4. With only 3 Pence would break a tie. I wouldn't hold my breath.

So let's close this thread.

[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.

No, Obama was not a lame duck. Lame ducks are those who are still in office after they lost. Obama never lost. Trump, however, has a good chance of being an actual lame duck. As do many of the Senators who will be trying to cram this through.

[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?

McConnell broke the Senate. Republicans deserve no courtesy. Regular order died when they filibustered Obama’s appointees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What part of her statement that the vacancy should be filled by whoever wins the election signaled to you that she’d approve of pushing through Trump’s nominee after he loses the election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

Seems like Republicans heard the feedback from Democrats and are willing to fix the rules.

Too late. The time to fix was back then, when we didn't want it. You didn't, so "fixing the rule" when it is no longer to your advantage is just malignant behavior.

[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.

1. I don't trust them. But maybe they'll follow through this time.

2. Mitch needs members of his caucus to be able to campaign next month. SCOTUS confirmation will likely take place in the lame duck session.

3. Mark Kelly COULD (if elected) become a Senator on November 30.

4. Pelosi has not ruled out jamming up the Senate with an impeachment.

I bet Mitch finds a way to make this happen. Whether he does or not, if the Dems take the WH and Senate I will encourage my lawmakers to expand SCOTUS and admit DC and PR as States. The GOP uses every inch of wiggle room in the Constitution their advantage. Time for the Dems to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

Seems like Republicans heard the feedback from Democrats and are willing to fix the rules.

Can you actually say that with a straight face?

[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?

Do you really not see that the hipocrisy in on the republicans entirely? You all set this precedent. We pleaded with you not to. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want to ignore the precedent you set. The fact that so many posters here truly can't seem to get that is terrifying to me. There really is no hope for us if we can't agree on a baseline of facts and reality. I would feel better if you all just admitted to being hypocritical spineless power-grabbers, fully aware of your lies and deceit. At least that would make sense.

[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?

Do you really not see that the hipocrisy in on the republicans entirely? You all set this precedent. We pleaded with you not to. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want to ignore the precedent you set. The fact that so many posters here truly can't seem to get that is terrifying to me. There really is no hope for us if we can't agree on a baseline of facts and reality. I would feel better if you all just admitted to being hypocritical spineless power-grabbers, fully aware of your lies and deceit. At least that would make sense.

Most of us can; take comfort in that.

It feels like five conservative pps on here stubbornly refuse to acknowledge facts, even though they know them, because they really really want to win. They don’t understand that if they “win,” they lose.

[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?

Do you really not see that the hipocrisy in on the republicans entirely? You all set this precedent. We pleaded with you not to. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want to ignore the precedent you set. The fact that so many posters here truly can't seem to get that is terrifying to me. There really is no hope for us if we can't agree on a baseline of facts and reality. I would feel better if you all just admitted to being hypocritical spineless power-grabbers, fully aware of your lies and deceit. At least that would make sense.

Do YOU not see the hypocrisy of the Democrats? They demanded a vote in 2016. They demand the opposite today. The shoe is on the other foot, but Democrats don't want to change the rules they originally fought against. It amazes and saddens me how democrats keep pushing the blame from themselves and can't see their own sanctimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you really not see that the hipocrisy in on the republicans entirely? You all set this precedent. We pleaded with you not to. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want to ignore the precedent you set. The fact that so many posters here truly can't seem to get that is terrifying to me. There really is no hope for us if we can't agree on a baseline of facts and reality. I would feel better if you all just admitted to being hypocritical spineless power-grabbers, fully aware of your lies and deceit. At least that would make sense.

Do YOU not see the hypocrisy of the Democrats? They demanded a vote in 2016. They demand the opposite today. The shoe is on the other foot, but Democrats don't want to change the rules they originally fought against. It amazes and saddens me how democrats keep pushing the blame from themselves and can't see their own sanctimony

The demand the opposite today BECAUSE there was no vote in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Do you really not see that the hipocrisy in on the republicans entirely? You all set this precedent. We pleaded with you not to. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want to ignore the precedent you set. The fact that so many posters here truly can't seem to get that is terrifying to me. There really is no hope for us if we can't agree on a baseline of facts and reality. I would feel better if you all just admitted to being hypocritical spineless power-grabbers, fully aware of your lies and deceit. At least that would make sense.

Do YOU not see the hypocrisy of the Democrats? They demanded a vote in 2016. They demand the opposite today. The shoe is on the other foot, but Democrats don't want to change the rules they originally fought against. It amazes and saddens me how democrats keep pushing the blame from themselves and can't see their own sanctimony

Are you serious? Do fairness and integrity mean nothing? The rules never should have been changed in 2016. But they were. And so to go back on it now just because it no longer benefits the Republicans is the height of hypocrisy.