RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Only if you believe that last words outweigh an entire lifetime of working for equal rights. What will YOUR last words be, I wonder, and will you have the presence of mind to think of your "legacy" when you utter them?

Snort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Only if you believe that last words outweigh an entire lifetime of working for equal rights. What will YOUR last words be, I wonder, and will you have the presence of mind to think of your "legacy" when you utter them?

Snort.

Wow, RBG must not think much of her accomplishments. Her position will be filled by someone qualified for the job . Oh the horror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

$160 million in donations to ActBlue in 72 hours says you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Better than your pathetic legacy of watching Tucker Carlson and coming here and passing off his disgusting lies as your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

$160 million in donations to ActBlue in 72 hours says you have no idea what you are talking about.

If money makes things true, why don't you believe Donald Trump?

[Anonymous]

The New York Times says Trump has the votes to confirm a SC Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

$160 million in donations to ActBlue in 72 hours says you have no idea what you are talking about.

If money makes things true, why don't you believe Donald Trump?

He only *says* he has money. Considering his penchant for lying, who believes him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm too old to confuse smart for cynical.

I'm also old enough to remember when the right exploded in anger at Gorsuch for siding with LGBT workplace discrimination protections. Maybe the justices don't mean as Mitch thinks they do? (They certainly don't matter to me as long as they are qualified. My concern is that McConnell will break the Constitution to get what he wants.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times says Trump has the votes to confirm a SC Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I've known this for days. Murkowski and Collins wouldn't have said they opposed the vote unless McConnell knew he could confirm the SC without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

I hear the dying wish is in the Constitution as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times says Trump has the votes to confirm a SC Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I've known this for days. Murkowski and Collins wouldn't have said they opposed the vote unless McConnell knew he could confirm the SC without them.

Collins is trying to appease all the voters that are angry with her for Kavanaugh with her fake "stand". I suspect Maine voters will see through this ploy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times says Trump has the votes to confirm a SC Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I've known this for days. Murkowski and Collins wouldn't have said they opposed the vote unless McConnell knew he could confirm the SC without them.

Collins is trying to appease all the voters that are angry with her for Kavanaugh with her fake "stand". I suspect Maine voters will see through this ploy.

+1. It's a classic Collins ploy to vote against her party when they already have enough votes anyway.

[Anonymous]

Nice to know the Senate has made up its collective mind to confirm Trump's nominee after vigorous examination and debate.

Now -- who is that nominee again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times says Trump has the votes to confirm a SC Justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I've known this for days. Murkowski and Collins wouldn't have said they opposed the vote unless McConnell knew he could confirm the SC without them.

Collins is trying to appease all the voters that are angry with her for Kavanaugh with her fake "stand". I suspect Maine voters will see through this ploy.

+1. It's a classic Collins ploy to vote against her party when they already have enough votes anyway.

From her Kavanaugh speech:

The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the judge’s name on its pre-written press release. They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump’s nomination of “XX” to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.

I can't wait to hear her speech criticizing Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senators who pledged to vote for Trump's nominee before Trump even named one!

[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.

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

The constitution is what people with power say it is. Your have your vote. It's your only opportunity to call him on it.