RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

That requires free and fair elections, which the GOP seems to oppose as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

There is none. The voters will either ratify Trump's view of the Constitution or Biden's. Trump's view is he can do what he wants. I'm not sure of Biden's exact view, but I'm sure it's a little more nuanced than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

There is no right to vote in the Constitution. That's the Electoral College at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

There is no right to vote in the Constitution. That's the Electoral College at work.

Isn't it in the Constitution to vote directly for Senators? Or could that be up to the state lawmakers?

[Anonymous]

Gardner will vote to confirm.

Shocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

I see that you didn't answer the question. Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016, as required by the Constitution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

I see that you didn't answer the question. Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016, as required by the Constitution?

No. And in so doing, Mitch showed that it's not actually required. It had just always been done.

I hate Mitch. But he knows what he's doing. He's a piece of shit, but he's smart and effective for himself and a few others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

The first remedy is for people to call this what this is: dereliction of duty. Stop saying this is "just politics." Stop saying "it isn't fair." It is the Republican controlled Senate violating the Constitution. They know it too. Read the statement from this Senator:

https://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/9/wicker-supports-effort-to-confirm-next-supreme-court-justice-this-year

President Trump and Senate Republicans promised to confirm well-qualified, conservative judges and justices to the federal courts. We should continue to fulfill this promise and our constitutional duty for all vacancies as long as we are in office. I look forward to consideration of the President’s nominee by the full Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

I see that you didn't answer the question. Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016, as required by the Constitution?

No. And in so doing, Mitch showed that it's not actually required. It had just always been done.

I hate Mitch. But he knows what he's doing. He's a piece of shit, but he's smart and effective for himself and a few others.

The Constitution says it is required. Just because no one of import has called him on it, doesn't make it Constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

I see that you didn't answer the question. Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016, as required by the Constitution?

No. And in so doing, Mitch showed that it's not actually required. It had just always been done.

I hate Mitch. But he knows what he's doing. He's a piece of shit, but he's smart and effective for himself and a few others.

I'm not convinced of this.

[Anonymous]

Democrats, do you get the sense that all of your bombastic threats about RBG are working? I don’t think it’s working. At all.

Do any of you actually believe that her last wish was about filling a vacant scotus seat?

That is one pathetic legacy if true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But, in your view, it would be Constitutional for the Senate to allow the court to run out of justices? If McConnell's actions are Constitutional, then having an empty Supreme Court would also be Constitutional."

Explain what the remedy is, other than the voters. NP

I think the Senate has a duty to advise and consent to the nominees, meaning they need to work with the President to find a nominee acceptable to all parties. It's the only thing that doesn't result in absurd scenarios like an empty Supreme Court.

Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016?

What is the remedy for their dereliction of duty, other than the voters?

I see that you didn't answer the question. Did the Senate advise Obama in 2016, as required by the Constitution?

No. And in so doing, Mitch showed that it's not actually required. It had just always been done.

I hate Mitch. But he knows what he's doing. He's a piece of shit, but he's smart and effective for himself and a few others.

I'm not convinced of this.

You may want to reconsider, he’s about to cement Donald tru
Is legacy as the guy who’s had more influence on the Supreme Court than any other modern president.
Alone, Mitch is responsible for 4 justices.