Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Obama said if they didn't give him a fair hearing, then they would break the process. They didn't give him a hearing, so, they broke the process. Democrats can't do anything about it now, Republicans already broke it.

Anonymous wrote:So Murkowski and Collins are already out in favor do waiting. We need 3 people out this way to wait.

My sad prognosis is that these two rushing up front were doing so so they don’t have to be number 3. No one will be number 3. Such a sad shame. Could the historians in the room share some perspective? I’m just an engineer.

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork Bork had hearings and a vote, but didn't pass the senate
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time Thomas had hearings and a vote
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees Cite?
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford) It wasn't fully vetted. I am more concerned about his perjury and financial disclosures that were lacking, but hey, he had a hearings and a vote
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees Because McConnell brought Obama's nominations to a halt, impacting the third branch of our goverment

As far as I know, the only shenanigans that the Republicans have pulled is the Garland incident. I’m not saying at all that that was okay, but suggesting that the Republicans are the bad guys here is delusional

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RBG's last wish and her previous statement are at odds. Some are asking if it has been verified that her "last wish" was really hers.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, "That's their job," the New York Times reported.

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good.

"Eight is not a good number," she said, the Washington Post reported.

Let's honor her verified statement.

Whatever. You know full well why she clung to life and didn't resign these past few months. You also know that she didn't believe in unfair rules or "rules" that disadvantage women.

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him (Garland) a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said then. (2016) “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

What's the problem, Democrats?

Don't you want the Senate to give Trump's nomination a fair hearing like Obama asked?

Or is this another example of your famous, "Do what I say, not as I do," mission statement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Then expect the Dems to do the same. Gloves are off.

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford)
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees

As far as I know, the only shenanigans that the Republicans have pulled is the Garland incident. I’m not saying at all that that was okay, but suggesting that the Republicans are the bad guys here is delusional

Demonstrably false? Not sure you know what that means.

Do you know why Reid removed the filibuster?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The GOP should and will do anything within their legal rights to advance their philosophy. To not do so would be immoral.

Then expect the Dems to do the same. Gloves are off.

The Dems have been doing this for decades:
• Borking Bork
• Broadcasting salacious accusations against Clarence Thomas during prime time
• Announced refusal to consider an HW appointee before the election
• 100% of the filibusters of Supreme Court Nominees
• Accusing Kavanaugh of demonstrably false sexual assaults (I’m not talking about Ford)
• Removal of filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees

As far as I know, the only shenanigans that the Republicans have pulled is the Garland incident. I’m not saying at all that that was okay, but suggesting that the Republicans are the bad guys here is delusional

Anonymous wrote:RBG's last wish and her previous statement are at odds. Some are asking if it has been verified that her "last wish" was really hers.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, "That's their job," the New York Times reported.

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year," Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good.

"Eight is not a good number," she said, the Washington Post reported.

Let's honor her verified statement.