Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote]OK, here's a hypothetical for you and everyone else: Let's say (1) Trump gets elected president, (2) the Democrats take back the Senate, and (3) Ginsburg dies on his first day in office. Would the Democrats in the Senate be acting appropriately and fulfilling their duty if they say, "Nope, we consider Trump an ideologue and a charlatan, so we're not going to consider any Supreme Court nominee he offers. We'll just wait until the next President arrives in 2020 to replace Ginsburg." Justifiable in your worldview? FWIW, you could easily flip that hypothetical too: Would a Republican Senate in 2017 be justified in refusing to consider any Hillary Clinton nominations for her entire four-year term? I know the current line Republicans are drawing is just the third year of a President's term, but there's not reason it cannot be extended: Second half of a President's term? Entire President's term? What's the difference? [/quote] I had a Republican judge tell me in January 1997, pretty much the first week of Clinton's second term, that he thought the Senate could and should just refuse to confirm judges for four years. I had another Republican judge on the same court tell me, "You know what advise and consent means? It means we get to pick half of them." They just make this shit up as they go along. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics