RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

He may be trying to say that there will be 50-51 Republican senators prepared to vote on a nominee this year. The outcome is likely to be a confirmation of this nominee but it is not pre-determined. Republicans help sink the nomination of Harriet Myers during the Bush 43 years. There are two, maybe even three, GOP senators who are prepared to go against their party and not vote for the Republican nominee. When was the last time a Democratic senator ever voted against a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?

Use your brain. They had no issues saying no to Meyers, because Bush was able to just put up another nominee and get them confirmed.
Come on man.

You are not following. Both parties vote overwhelmingly for the nominees from their party. Occasionally, a Republican will go against the party. So, Graham's statements are not really news. He just admitted what everyone knows to be true. Occasionally he accidentally tells the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

He may be trying to say that there will be 50-51 Republican senators prepared to vote on a nominee this year. The outcome is likely to be a confirmation of this nominee but it is not pre-determined. Republicans help sink the nomination of Harriet Myers during the Bush 43 years. There are two, maybe even three, GOP senators who are prepared to go against their party and not vote for the Republican nominee. When was the last time a Democratic senator ever voted against a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?

Kagan, who was the last democratic nominee who got a vote.

[Anonymous]

Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Just came here to post this. I'm so mad. I'm a Never Trumper and I campaigned for him both times he ran. I voted straight ticket D for the first time on Friday. The GOP is dead to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Just came here to post this. I'm so mad. I'm a Never Trumper and I campaigned for him both times he ran. I voted straight ticket D for the first time on Friday. The GOP is dead to me.

Thank you for seeing the light.

I’m in Maryland and am a lifelong Democrat, so my vote won’t change much, but I’m putting on my mask, grabbing my hand sanitizer and voting in person. I don’t trust USPS right now and need to make sure my vote counts, even in a deep blue state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Just came here to post this. I'm so mad. I'm a Never Trumper and I campaigned for him both times he ran. I voted straight ticket D for the first time on Friday. The GOP is dead to me.

Welcome! I’m sorry it took this terrible turn of events, but welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

It is a fact that McConnell wouldn't let the Senate vote on any Obama nominee. Senators weren't given the option. Some Senators have publicly state their support for McConnell doing this. Others, including Romney, have not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

The problem is that you are living in a Kafka novel and don't realize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

The problem is that you are living in a Kafka novel and don't realize it.

No, I do realize it. But blaming Romney is like Trump blaming Biden for not passing a mask mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

Fact is they would have picked any reason at all re: Garland and re: RBG vacancy. They should have been honest in 2016 regarding their motives. National Review declares that it's all politics and that's ok because it's all still within the Constitution. Fine, then so would be court packing--but we need to take Congress and the Presidency to do that.

Considering the racial politics we started with in 1787, one could say that our system has been fundamentally corrupt since the get go. So much for that shining city on the hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Not really. Romney's statement says that he believes that the Senate should consider the candidate and he will judge the candidate on their merits. He has flip-flopped on his stance on abortion, but most recently 2012-2016, he has been pro-abortion. He has said he believes that women have the right to choose and that Roe v Wade is established law. That doesn't mean he won't flip again but is his most recent position. Therefore, if ACB is nominated, he might actually vote against her.

Lagoa is more of a question. While she is fairly conservative, she has been very public about saying that Roe v Wade is established law and that she would uphold it. While she might be as deceitful as Kavanaugh, she doesn't have a history of anti-abortion rulings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

He may be trying to say that there will be 50-51 Republican senators prepared to vote on a nominee this year. The outcome is likely to be a confirmation of this nominee but it is not pre-determined. Republicans help sink the nomination of Harriet Myers during the Bush 43 years. There are two, maybe even three, GOP senators who are prepared to go against their party and not vote for the Republican nominee. When was the last time a Democratic senator ever voted against a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?

Use your brain. They had no issues saying no to Meyers, because Bush was able to just put up another nominee and get them confirmed.
Come on man.

You are not following. Both parties vote overwhelmingly for the nominees from their party. Occasionally, a Republican will go against the party. So, Graham's statements are not really news. He just admitted what everyone knows to be true. Occasionally he accidentally tells the truth.

It is the opposite of what Graham and other Republican Senators said in 2016. Not once did they say that their 'no judges in election year" rule applied only when the President was from the other party. In fact, they PROMISED that if a Republican President had a SC vacancy in 2020 they would let the winner of the election choose the replacement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

The GOP rule is that they will do whatever is within their power to shape the courts to their own ideological preferences. Democrats should start realizing that is the rule, and follow it themselves. It means court packing is fine. It means adding DC and Puerto Rico as states is fine. It means refusing to confirm any judicial nominees by a republican president is fine.