Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Wow. I didn't expect such forthrightness of Collins. Major CYA to please both parties before her potential re-election. I'll take it!
She will vote for the nominee after the election...win or not.
Anonymous wrote:
Wow. I didn't expect such forthrightness of Collins. Major CYA to please both parties before her potential re-election. I'll take it!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Murkowski already announced she wouldn’t vote for a nominee right?
Romney has been quiet, but I think he’s a probable no.
One thing to remember is that Martha McSally will probably lose her election and, since she was appointed, has to be out by November 30th (but Mark Kelly can kick her out on Nov 4th). Therefore, unless the GOP can get all of this done before the election, they’ll be down to 52 seats, which means 3 defections would be enough.
But who would defect?
Anonymous wrote:
Murkowski already announced she wouldn’t vote for a nominee right?
Romney has been quiet, but I think he’s a probable no.
One thing to remember is that Martha McSally will probably lose her election and, since she was appointed, has to be out by November 30th (but Mark Kelly can kick her out on Nov 4th). Therefore, unless the GOP can get all of this done before the election, they’ll be down to 52 seats, which means 3 defections would be enough.
Anonymous wrote:
Murkowski already announced she wouldn’t vote for a nominee right?
Romney has been quiet, but I think he’s a probable no.
One thing to remember is that Martha McSally will probably lose her election and, since she was appointed, has to be out by November 30th (but Mark Kelly can kick her out on Nov 4th). Therefore, unless the GOP can get all of this done before the election, they’ll be down to 52 seats, which means 3 defections would be enough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Murkowski already announced she wouldn’t vote for a nominee right?
Romney has been quiet, but I think he’s a probable no.
One thing to remember is that Martha McSally will probably lose her election and, since she was appointed, has to be out by November 30th (but Mark Kelly can kick her out on Nov 4th). Therefore, unless the GOP can get all of this done before the election, they’ll be down to 52 seats, which means 3 defections would be enough.
There’s going be plenty of arm-twisting going on. I don’t think Romney remains a no. This is a golden opportunity for them.
Anonymous wrote:
Murkowski already announced she wouldn’t vote for a nominee right?
Romney has been quiet, but I think he’s a probable no.
One thing to remember is that Martha McSally will probably lose her election and, since she was appointed, has to be out by November 30th (but Mark Kelly can kick her out on Nov 4th). Therefore, unless the GOP can get all of this done before the election, they’ll be down to 52 seats, which means 3 defections would be enough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html
It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.
+ 1
I think it was very selfish
They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.
They being one person- RBG.
It was her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it was never ours.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html
It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.
+ 1
I think it was very selfish
But you are. You are also presuming to have better judgment than she, who had more knowledge of the situation than you an outsider.
Finally, being a Monday morning quarteback does nothing to fix the current situation we are in. How about using that energy towards something that is helpful now like vocally pressuring senators to abide by their words.