Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why stop there? How about secession and civil war? There’s stronger precedent for that than for court packing.

Because succession and civil war are not within the rules. All of the options I listed are completely legal if the Democrats win the Senate, House and Presidency. That's the McConnell rule. Precedent does not matter. Good faith does not matter. Compromise does not matter. Prior promises or statements do not matter. Anything legal is fair game.

But SCOTUS has been fabricating “the rules” for about 90 years now. Sorry you can have your activist, anti-democratic SCOTUS to dictate new laws to the country any more. Actually, now that the left has tread the path of SCOTUS issuing new laws via dictat, I bet the new conservative SCOTUS will do the same but from the right. Enjoy SCOTUS announcing an affirmative action ban, an abortion ban, gun regulation ban, gay marriage ban, religious freedom directives, a crackdown on biased social media, a ban on companies intimidating conservative employees, etc. All based on unwritten “penumbras” that SCOTUS will “discover” in the constitution. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Why is abortion a litmus test, aren't their more important issues?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why stop there? How about secession and civil war? There’s stronger precedent for that than for court packing.

Because succession and civil war are not within the rules. All of the options I listed are completely legal if the Democrats win the Senate, House and Presidency. That's the McConnell rule. Precedent does not matter. Good faith does not matter. Compromise does not matter. Prior promises or statements do not matter. Anything legal is fair game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

Are there 4 GOP votes are in favor of Roe?

I actually think that someone like Lagoa would be in more danger. If Collins and Murkowski are true to their word (which is big assumption), the GOP can afford two more no votes. Josh Hawley has made a big deal of his litmus test that he will only vote for a nominee that said the were against Roe before being nominated. Lagoa doesn’t pass that test. If one other senator signs up to that, she loses.

LOL I would be VERY surprised if Josh Hawley opposed any Trump nominee. Graham already has said they will support the nominee out of committee when they don't even know who the nominee is and Graham said AFTER Kavanaugh was sworn in that he wouldn't vote for a nominee in an election year. The senators will absolutely flip flip to do whatever Trump wants here.

There are a lot of republicans who feel very betrayed that justices they thought were locks to reverse Roe ended up going soft. They want someone who is a sure vote to reverse Roe. I predict a backlash from the most social conservative warriors like Hawley and Cotton if he picks someone that isn't a sure vote against Roe.

Have any of these people actually thought about the implications of the court overturning established legal precedent? This seems incredibly dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

Are there 4 GOP votes are in favor of Roe?

I actually think that someone like Lagoa would be in more danger. If Collins and Murkowski are true to their word (which is big assumption), the GOP can afford two more no votes. Josh Hawley has made a big deal of his litmus test that he will only vote for a nominee that said the were against Roe before being nominated. Lagoa doesn’t pass that test. If one other senator signs up to that, she loses.

LOL I would be VERY surprised if Josh Hawley opposed any Trump nominee. Graham already has said they will support the nominee out of committee when they don't even know who the nominee is and Graham said AFTER Kavanaugh was sworn in that he wouldn't vote for a nominee in an election year. The senators will absolutely flip flip to do whatever Trump wants here.

There are a lot of republicans who feel very betrayed that justices they thought were locks to reverse Roe ended up going soft. They want someone who is a sure vote to reverse Roe. I predict a backlash from the most social conservative warriors like Hawley and Cotton if he picks someone that isn't a sure vote against Roe.

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.

I completely agree. McConnell has poisoned the well. There wouldn't be this much toxic resentment and heartbreak if Garland, a *moderate*, had been confirmed. He should have been confirmed.
Don't forget that Romney is not beholden to Trump but is beholden to his conservative and religious conscience. He has integrity to his beliefs, but unfortunately for Democrats, his beliefs lean right.

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

Totally seeing Ronmey screw it up

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

Are there 4 GOP votes are in favor of Roe?

I actually think that someone like Lagoa would be in more danger. If Collins and Murkowski are true to their word (which is big assumption), the GOP can afford two more no votes. Josh Hawley has made a big deal of his litmus test that he will only vote for a nominee that said the were against Roe before being nominated. Lagoa doesn’t pass that test. If one other senator signs up to that, she loses.

LOL I would be VERY surprised if Josh Hawley opposed any Trump nominee. Graham already has said they will support the nominee out of committee when they don't even know who the nominee is and Graham said AFTER Kavanaugh was sworn in that he wouldn't vote for a nominee in an election year. The senators will absolutely flip flip to do whatever Trump wants here.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why stop there? How about secession and civil war? There’s stronger precedent for that than for court packing.

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"

Deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hypocritical whether Romney was there in 2016 or not. Regardless of what he thought back then, unmaking the rule now does not solve the real problem, it just compounds it.

There is no rule. McConnell made it up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hypocritical whether Romney was there in 2016 or not. Regardless of what he thought back then, unmaking the rule now does not solve the real problem, it just compounds it.

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

If you look at the statements from Collins and Murkowski they aren't really saying they won't vote if it comes up- they are saying the vote SHOULDN'T be held.

Anonymous wrote:If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.

Are there 4 GOP votes are in favor of Roe?

I actually think that someone like Lagoa would be in more danger. If Collins and Murkowski are true to their word (which is big assumption), the GOP can afford two more no votes. Josh Hawley has made a big deal of his litmus test that he will only vote for a nominee that said the were against Roe before being nominated. Lagoa doesn’t pass that test. If one other senator signs up to that, she loses.

If the nominee is Barrett, there is no guarantee she passes the Senate.

I could see Romney allowing the vote to happen, but then opposing the nominee.