!"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729)
I am thinking it would be a mistake for Donald and Mitch to try to ram through a replacement in next few weeks.
It might even be a mistake for Donald to nominate someone.
My reasoning: Many folks, even true Republicans, might think this was 'over the top' given what happened with Obama's nominee.
It might be a real turn-off for such folks and even raise feelings of disgust toward Donald.
I would like to see it done; but think it would be too risky.
RBG's death is a great boon to the liberal cause - at this time. She will be a rallying cry to get liberals to the polls. "We must replace RBG with someone who thinks like her ......"From a strategic standpoint McConnell is making the right move. He now puts Trump in a position to appear magnanimous when he states he is going to wait to after he wins the next election. That said, the hypocrisy of McConnell and other republicans would be astonishing if they were to genuinely try to ram a pick in at this time. I'm curious to see what the next moves are.
Were Trump to move ahead with a nomination, it would give Democrats the impetus to change the make-up of the court to expand it with over 50% of the Justices being liberal.
ML, you are correct. Pursuing a nomination prior to the election would be tantamount to handing the election to Joe Biden.
Make America Great Again!
You mean 'Trampu' hasn't achieved that, yet ? ....
RIP RBG.
What news to wake up to!
She was a fighter. People counted her out many times over the years she fought health issues but she would always bounce back.
He's achieved that which is why he changed his slogan to "Keep America Great".
And she has bounced back yet again - with one giant leap.
Let's see if McConnell and Trump are capable of acting with common decency, deliberation, and due diligence, or simply bow to desperation and hypocrisy.
I'm glad RGB has breathed her last, the west needs to get away from feminism and the destruction it causes. This could be a turning point to make western society good again the way it used to be and the way it is in the FSU.Hola! I"m curious from your view what would the supreme court now do that would make western society more like how it is in the FSU? What aspect of feminism will be reversed from the death and replacement of RBG? It seems to me that women are doing ok overall. There may be less interest in creating the traditional nuclear family, although that has been occurring for many many moons. Immigrants, (Often from South of the Border) do make up a lot of the young nuclear families nowadays.
Hola! I"m curious from your view what would the supreme court now do that would make western society more like how it is in the FSU? What aspect of feminism will be reversed from the death and replacement of RBG? It seems to me that women are doing ok overall. There may be less interest in creating the traditional nuclear family, although that has been occurring for many many moons. Immigrants, (Often from South of the Border) do make up a lot of the young nuclear families nowadays.
Fathertime!
!"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729)
Let's see if McConnell and Trump are capable of acting with common decency,
deliberation, and due diligence, or simply bow to desperation and hypocrisy.
1) Death of RGB is going to hurt Donald's chance of winning and hurt the chance that Repubs keep control of the Senate. Reason: Those in the middle and independents will be even more galvanized toward stopping another conservative justice from being on Supreme Court. Same idea as to why religious right gave strong support to Donald in 2016 election. Independents probably want a fairly balanced Supreme Court with one swing vote. Roberts is going to be the swing vote going forward.
4) If Donald wins re-election . . . Clarence and Samuel should resign within a couple of years . . . for same reason that Ruth should have resigned during Obama"s last term
Democratic hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I believe most independents who voted for Trump last election knew full well he'd be nominating conservative judges to all high courts and aren't afraid he will nominate conservative judges next term.
RIP RBG.
What news to wake up to!
Life is awful quirky. The good ol' gal has managed to put the GOP, Trump, and our country on the spot in a way no one else can.
Eerily, it's almost like she thought this through as a parting test of our political moral compass.
Talk about going out with a bang...
Smart as a whip I say.
This could be an excellent opportunity for GOP to reach across the aisle in a neutral fashion without even appearing to do so. GOP can decide they need to live up to their word and allow Trump the chance to finish the race on his own merits. If he wins, move forward with the nomination. If he loses GOP has a better chance of surviving intact instead of having put all their eggs in Trump's falling basket. It would be a first step forward at the right time on the high road for a change, put the spotlight back on Trump with good chances of de-escalating the political divide in Congress. Win-Win.
All sides should step back, test public reaction over the next days and ceremonies, and reflect before acting.
Anything less only sends us in a spiraling race down divided paths, destroying even the last smidgen of trust and good faith we have we have in politics, and each other.
As has been discussed elsewhere, the make-up of S.C. is perhaps more important in the long-run than who is elected president for any 4 year period.
That is a President's influence on just the Judicial Branch.
I doubt that Trump nominating a SC judge would be changing that many votes. Why are the Republicans supposed to be 'nice' now, after all the efforts the dems have made to bring down his administration? As far as I am concerned it is time to squash the leftists and return our country to the ideals of our founding fathers and those supporting the constitution.
My observations show me that the left is very loud and noisy but benefits from a media that exaggerates their size and power. I expect the silent majority to give Trump a victory in the election. We will see.
Unless, of course, the GOP Senate uses 500 or so filibusters to block judicial and other appointments. Remember when this happened and what the result was?
Well, RBG put the ball squarely in GOP's court FP. They have a choice, and responsibility for what happens with it.
We'll see...
Then they should do exactly what the Democrats would do and appoint
a conservative Judge and push them through. Then you would have
5 conservatives, 3 Left wingers and 1 moderate. If the situation were
reversed then the Democrats would never, ever, ever, ever take the
same chance that you are suggesting the Republicans to take. The
Dem's would consider it their birthright after not getting Merrick Garland
They would laugh in our faces if we asked them to wait after the election
when they had the majority in the Senate.
The days of reaching across the isle about appointments to the Supreme
court are gone forever.
I doubt that Trump nominating a SC judge would be changing that many votes. Why are the Republicans supposed to be 'nice' now, after all the efforts the dems have made to bring down his administration? As far as I am concerned it is time to squash the leftists and return our country to the ideals of our founding fathers and those supporting the constitution.I think many of the votes will be changed (Or turnout increased) by the mere fact that trump will now have the ability to replace this particular liberal judge.
Give RBG the respect she's earned. Let the country be in mourning for a week. After that, FILL THAT SEAT!! FILL THAT SEAT!!
Even she knew it was well within the POTUS Constitutional right to do so as every POTUS before him did. The difference between now and 2016 is both the executive and house of Senate are of the same political party. Make no mistake about it, these zany Democrats would've done it had THE Stooge had the Senate in 2016.
FILL THAT SEAT!! FILL THAT SEAT!! A week, and not a minute longer!!!!
MAGA 2020!!!
I think many of the votes will be changed (Or turnout increased) by the mere fact that trump will now have the ability to replace this particular liberal judge.
It is a fantasy that leftists will be 'squashed'. if trump succeeds in nominating a replacement as a lame duck or as the loser, it will further detach majority of voters from feeling represented as they might like to be. The country will likely continue right on it's same path regardless. There would just be more defiance.
Fathertime!
The vote turnout will be what the turnout is. With President Trumps next four years expect more draining of the swampI think certain events can increase turnout, and RBG dying weeks before the election is one of those things. It really doesn't matter that much though, if the hypocritical conservatives can ram their pick through before the presidency is lost or the senate. There is a chance that a few republican senators won't go along with this though and insist on waiting until the election has ended.
Just getting feminists out of these sorts of positions in general should help. If it stops them having influence over the law that would give women the upper hand then that could go a long way to making relationships work again.I'd say relationships are working just fine already if people want to be in them.
I think certain events can increase turnout, and RBG dying weeks before the election is one of those things. It really doesn't matter that much though, if the hypocritical conservatives can ram their pick through before the presidency is lost or the senate. There is a chance that a few republican senators won't go along with this though and insist on waiting until the election has ended.
Overall I don't think trump has drained a swamp at all. He has succeeded at lowering the US standing around the globe, (Which I support), and he has helped fuel discontent internally which isn't a positive.
Fathertime!
Trump has stated he will nominate a woman.
Maybe any potential nominee will decline being named knowing the Democrats will respond with a cruel campaign to destroy them. That's sad statement about hyper-contentious America.
Hey brudda, they have conducted the breath test and she is dead. Damn the week. Fill the seat. It ain't going to fill itself
I understand the rationale behind your statement although the week is a necessary time for proper diligence beyond what I mentioned. Now more than ever a nominee will not only be vedded as always, but will also need to be one with the strongest of character due to the likely hostile inquisition the numbnuts are sure to badger ‘her’ with.
Accepting a nomination under the current climate is not a very promising experience to go through as we’ve all witness with Kavanaugh.
So speaks the Barry Goldwater theory of politics.
This will be a really wild ride if a nomination is indeed placed. With the required 3/5 for confirmation and the Republicans holding 53 Senate seats, we can spare Collins, Murkowski and the eternal idiot Romney from sitting this one out. Too close. Mitch need to make he has the affirmation if everyone else before giving THE Donald the green light.
Kavanaugh was confirmed by a 50-48 votes, while Gorsuch at 53-45.
Collins has already stated she thinks the vote should wait. She hasn't said she wouldn't vote or would vote against her party. Murkowski is a loose canon either way but both of those are likely to vote for the right candidate. Romney will vote against anything Trump. There likely will be a democrat or two that breaks the ranks
Pelosi may consider Impeaching Trump to stall the Senate. She says she has a duty to protect the Constitution. How is Trump violating the Constitution if he nominates a judge right now? Maybe she and Schiff got another anonymous whistleblower complaint they've been waiting to use.
http://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/nancy-pelosi-impeach-scotus-nomination-155305894.html
this is a new era after what Dems did to Kavanaugh, so all civility out the window.
Dems or Kavanaugh's accusers? Again, a vote in the Senate does not exonerate or otherwise vindicate but simply says 'it doesn't matter'.
Agree, civility was thrown out long ago so is escalation the only path left?
. . . this is a new era after what Dems did to Kavanaugh, so all civility out the window.
Dems or Kavanaugh's accusers?
Democrats' Armageddon option
On the table: Adding Supreme Court justices ... eliminating the Senate's 60-vote
threshold to end filibusters ... and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. "If he holds
a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021," Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.)
Democrats' Armageddon optionIf it becomes necessary, I say the democrats pull out all stops including whatever Armageddon option they have. It may come to that. When the democrats play nice what winds up happening is the country is ruled by a conservative minority. In the case of the supreme court that branch could be dominated by a majority that represents a conservative minority in the country. It would be a further example of how poorly our system is working nowadays. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are (And would likely be) demonstrations galore....some of which turn into riots that the conservatives are unable to curtail. This shall wind up getting interesting.
On the table: Adding Supreme Court justices ... eliminating the Senate's 60-vote
threshold to end filibusters ... and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. "If he holds
a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021," Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.)
On ABC's "This Week," George Stephanopoulos asked Speaker Pelosi about the
possibility of impeaching President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way to
stall a Supreme Court confirmation in a post-election lame-duck session.
http://www.axios.com/democrats-supreme-court-ginsburg-options-871f3e66-e7a4-4f40-9691-d20de1f4be61.html
If it becomes necessary, I say the democrats pull out all stops including whatever Armageddon option they have. It may come to that. When the democrats play nice what winds up happening is the country is ruled by a conservative minority. In the case of the supreme court that branch could be dominated by a majority that represents a conservative minority in the country. It would be a further example of how poorly our system is working nowadays. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are (And would likely be) demonstrations galore....some of which turn into riots that the conservatives are unable to curtail. This shall wind up getting interesting.
Fathertime!
So you don't believe that the Feds should stop violent anarchists from destroying US cities, assaulting bystanders and harming small businesses?I think the protests will continue and at times escalate into rioting. If they can't control it now, it will be more difficult assuming the protests become more prevalent. As far as 'normal people', I don't think the people that go out shooting protesters are normal. That is not their job.
That's pretty sad because it could devolve into open civil war as normal people stand up for law and order on their own accord.
http://youtu.be/szO9JWrz3f8
I think the protests will continue and at times escalate into rioting. If they can't control it now, it will be more difficult assuming the protests become more prevalent. As far as 'normal people', I don't think the people that go out shooting protesters are normal. That is not their job.
I never saw more people hit the streets as back in 2005 or 2006 when the illegal immigrants and supporters hit the streets in the millions. The protests were largely peaceful, and that show of force has cowered the government from doing anything too drastic to them ever since.
I get the feeling trump will escalate this issue as he does most things, and the result will be bad, as it often is.
Fathertime!
Trump has constitutional authority and duty to make a nomination. It is up to the senate to take it to a confirmation. Make no mistake there is no hypocrisy here,
It is his duty to fill the seat and with such a controversial election coming up that seat needs to be filled.It was also the duty of the senate to permit the filling of the seat during obozo's term.
Yes Dems. Even Dianne Feinstein stirred the pot.
It's not escalation unless it happens to Dem's.
You can't be totally blind to history.
!"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729)
Ha! It is interesting to see how some of the conservatives are squirming about the hypocrisy.. See no evil, hear no evil and say no evil. This is going to be a hard sell.
Fathertime!
It was also the duty of the senate to permit the filling of the seat during obozo's term.
Fathertime!
You can pretend all you like, but it is hypocrisy from right wing conservatives. There is a list of statements floating about from people such as Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, among many other senators stating clearly not to replace a judge in last months leading up to an election. Your attempted cover is noted, and I don't suspect will be bought by the majority. I'm not sure having a very conservative supreme court will have that great of an affect on the country, but it won't represent the people correctly.
Fathertime!
Yeah just as I suspected, you're posting for reaction. I gave you the facts. Ignore them if you wishI read your version of 'the facts'. I also mentioned the same senators stated under obozo they would not support replacing a supreme court judge last second before an election, and are now trying to do the very opposite under trump. Straight hypocrisy, and partisanship....It is always interesting to read though how they concoct a new version of reasoning to justify their about face. Nevertheless thanks for your reaction.
I read your version of 'the facts'. I also mentioned the same senators stated under obozo they would not support replacing a supreme court judge last second before an election, and are now trying to do the very opposite under trump. Straight hypocrisy, and partisanship....It is always interesting to read though how they concoct a new version of reasoning to justify their about face. Nevertheless thanks for your reaction.
Fathertime!
No need in getting your blood pressure up and red faced FT. Accept the truth or deny it. Makes no matter to me but, you have heard the truth. Proof positive that you can lead a horse to water and he can walk away thirsty ;DI am quite fine. Your version of the truth is not accepted by most, and I continue to mention is going to be a VERY hard sell. The rubio/graham statements will be replayed over and over by the 'evil media', and pounded into the public. Even some conservatives will know in their heart of hearts it is straight hypocrisy/partisanship. Others such as yourself, will try to use talking points to defend it. I think trump may try to nominate, and may ever prevail, but it won't go over well with the people....but as we know that doesn't matter much!
I am quite fine. Your version of the truth is not accepted by most, and I continue to mention is going to be a VERY hard sell. The rubio/graham statements will be replayed over and over by the 'evil media', and pounded into the public. Even some conservatives will know in their heart of hearts it is straight hypocrisy/partisanship. Others such as yourself, will try to use talking points to defend it. I think trump may try to nominate, and may ever prevail, but it won't go over well with the people....but as we know that doesn't matter much!
Fathertime!
This has all the hallmarks of a leaderless, fear-driven society.
On one side we have a party that is fearful of a politically unbalanced Supreme Court. On the other side we have a party that fears if they don't do something now to replace RBG now with a conservative judge they won't have the chance again for some time to come.
There is only one choice available at this time and that is for the two warring parties to step back and let the people decide our fate.
He will nominate. What the senate does is up to McConnell and if they vote both Rubio and Graham will have a vote. Let's see what they do. Ginsberg herself stated publicly that the president should nominate during an election year.
McConnell has the power as soon as Trump sends over a nominee. Like it or not, both have the constitutional duty and authority. That's politics
What we have is anarchy.
Definition of ANARCHY - a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
BC, the problem in our society is not "leaderless" but the nonrecognition of Trump's authorities as President. This started before he took office and has been a constant action of the Democrats and left extremists throughout his four years.
Ginsberg herself stated publicly that the president should nominate during an election year.
McConnell has the power as soon as Trump sends over a nominee. Like it or not, both have the constitutional duty and authority. That's politics.
Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?referringSource=articleShare
“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?referringSource=articleShare (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?referringSource=articleShare)
When trust in a leader has been lost, we are de facto leaderless.
Most all Americans believe in our Constitution so I don't think we can call it anarchy.
Authority lies in our Constitution not a president, otherwise he/she would not be bound by it. When trust in a leader has been lost, we are de facto leaderless. Most all Americans believe in our Constitution so I don't think we can call it anarchy.
The voters expressed their trust in Trump by electing him President.
NO, they didn't ..3m more of 'em voted for Clinton ... your EC system elected 'Trampu' ...
NO, they didn't ..3m more of 'em voted for Clinton ... your EC system elected 'Trampu' ...My guess is this time around the number will be more than 3 million more votes for biden than trump. Trump reelected by more of a minority, then appoints a supreme court judge that isn't supported by the people. When/if this happens, it should be no surprise that people continue to protest within the 'most exceptional' country. The rest of the world will also protest by not cooperating very much with what we try to demand.
My guess is this time around the number will be more than 3 million more votes for biden than trump. Trump reelected by more of a minority, then appoints a supreme court judge that isn't supported by the people. When/if this happens, it should be no surprise that people continue to protest within the 'most exceptional' country. The rest of the world will also protest by not cooperating very much with what we try to demand.
Fathertime!
senators stated under obozo they would not support replacing a supreme court judge last second before an election, and are now trying to do the very opposite under trump. Straight hypocrisy, and partisanship....It is always interesting to read though how they concoct a new version of reasoning to justify their about face.
Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."Even if that was true...and who knows? [It was not a public statement] Some wish will not change the language of the Constitution.
Pelosi is pure evil. What a horrible person and an obstructionist of the peoples will.
Another possible stunt would be to grant Puerto Rico and the Virgin Is. statehood. 4 more Democrat senators + extra representatives to muck up the swamp. Also...dump the Electoral College [that's been discussed before]While they probably should be states if they want to be, I doubt that it is possible without bipartisan support. The conservatives would rather have some level of control without full representation for them. We probably borrow money to give to them to keep them bought off and not demanding independence or the right to vote. It seems to be working.
Fathertime is right...it is all hypocrisy. But everybody knows that hypocrisy is rampant on both sides.It is so rare to see those 3 words at the beginning of this quote. :D
While they probably should be states if they want to be ..."If they want to be?" How about Samoa...Guam..and the Marianas then? More politicians jeting around and polluting the air. Super.
It is so rare to see those 3 words at the beginning of this quote. :D
The hypocrisy runs both ways, there are a majority of conservatives here that attempt to deny the hypocrisy and concoct any excuse they can think of. I am really curious to see how the american people digest the rushing of the replacement for ginsburg by a conservative justice trump selects....and how the hypocritical conservative senators go along with it, after opposing the process under obozo when it was his final year.
If trump were to win in november, the democrats wouldn't be able to hold him up but trump may not feel confident that he will win so he has to rush the replacement. a 6-3 court isn't (In my opinion) a good representation of what the american people desire, but it can be dealt with like everything else.
Fathertime!
"If they want to be?" How about Samoa...Guam..and the Marianas then? More politicians jeting around and polluting the air. Super.
Pelosi is pure evil. What a horrible person and an obstructionist of the peoples will.
Escalation is never limited to one side 2Tall. You talk about the history and that proves my point, there will always be a 'well you did that first' that can go back to before the constitution. A line can't be drawn defining who started what, when, where, and how.
Either our endless political gaming and one-upmanship ends, or our nation ends.
Yes, it is that serious.
Then the Dem's need to understand that they went to far and stop it.
The GOP has never tried to destroy a liberal left wing judicial candidate
but the Dem's have done it repeatedly.
Look at the nominations of Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg.
Compare them to Kavanaugh, Thomas and Bork. Find anything
remotely similar to what Kavanaugh went through.
The Dem's are the problem. You blaming it on the GOP is laughable.
One remembers back to the days of Harry Truman. Not as President - or as FDR's VP. But instead as chair of the war oversite committee - a position that launched him into the Vice Presidency and beyond.
Harry never treated a witness to his committee with anything other than respect and consideration. Likewise, he treated his colleagues from across the aisle with equal respect. As a matter of interest, he'd sometimes cut the hearings short and call all committee members - both parties - to his office for a snort .... and to get their stories straight.
Will it take a war, again, to obtain the common purpose of governing our country with equanimity?
Someone asked me a couple of years ago why I didn't support Trump. I harkened back to the primary season in 2016. Trump consistently insulted each of his opponents. Remember him telling Carly Fiorina that she was too ugly to be president?
We're now in an era whereby many are saying that the Democrats deserve the treatment that they are getting because they behaved so poorly in the Kavenaugh hearings. Well, they had a good example to learn by with our insulter-in-chief.
...We're now in an era whereby many are saying that the Democrats deserve the treatment that they are getting because they behaved so poorly in the Kavenaugh hearings. Well, they had a good example to learn by with our insulter-in-chief.
But excusing the Democrat's heinous treatment of an outstanding person of merit and standard, and the vile attempt to destroy his life, character and career because of Trump is simply BS.
His 'qualities' were never properly investigated .. The Senate saw to that ..
*I* have a feeling if they had ... you might not be so vocal
Why bother? Anyone fed solely by fake news can't possibly have any idea of actual events in places they're not in.
add: So I guess Romney just committed to backing the nomination. Why am I feeling more than a bit skeptical?
Maybe he's happy with 5 more minutes of fame. I doubt he'll be a YAY
I get that you don't like Trump. Cool.
But excusing the Democrat's heinous treatment of an outstanding person of merit and standard, and the vile attempt to destroy his life, character and career because of Trump is simply BS.
I don't excuse the Democrats. But neither do I excuse Trump. Sauce for the goose....
Your story is a fictional fantasy which nobody still alive was part of. You've fondly
remembered stories of Tip O'Neal and the Gipper. Tip O'Neal hated Ronald Reagan
and he fought him on everything. Reagan would put together a plan and Tip would
publicly announce that it was dead on arrival before he even read it.
My Dad is 80 years old and he was 5 years old when Truman became president.
Who is this magic person who fondly remembers how Truman treated people
during committee hearings?
Trump said about Carly "just look at her" He inferred that she was ugly. He
didn't directly say it. However, he has been plenty rude, plenty of times to
plenty of people. The Dem's have been rude for decades.
Biden said that Romney was going to put black people back in chains.
The GOP is going to make Grandma eat dog food.
The GOP wants you to breath dirty air and drink dirty water.
The Republicans want to kill your kids
Trumps war on children, women, _________ name of other group here.
The Republicans are racists, homophobes, sexist, blah, blah, blah
blah ti blah ti blah.
All of those things are worse than Trump inferring that somebody is
ugly, Marco Rubio is short, Joe Biden is sleepy, Jeb has no energy etc.
Maybe he's happy with 5 more minutes of fame. I doubt he'll be a YAY
The Dem's are the problem. You blaming it on the GOP is laughable.
Romney is a Mormon and Mormons really stick together. He can do almost
anything wrong and it will be ignored or forgiven.
However, one thing in politics is that with Mormons is you have to be pro-life.
If Romney doesn't vote for a possible prolife justice when he could and then
things change and the Dem's install a baby killer, then Romney will have some
'splaining to do.
Geeze, Bill,
I find your evaluation of Truman to be specious. I've read more than a couple of books on Truman and my observations about his personality were his claim to fame. I submit to you David McCullough's 'Truman' if you still think I'm wrong. That is actually the book I was paraphrasing from.
http://www.google.com/books/edition/Truman/8fp1A2s6aQwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
As for Tip and Ronnie, I don't disagree with you ... but then, I have never mentioned them before on this forum. You might want to point me to where I have.
And you infer that they came upon this egregious treatment of Kavanaugh without provocation. Yet, you dismiss the Republican refusal to hear Merrick Garland's nomination as normal in the course of doing business.
Yet, you dismiss the Republican refusal to hear Merrick Garland's nomination as
normal in the course of doing business.
I'm with jone on this, a lot has to do with civility that has now been completely thrown out the window in one quantum leap into the abyss.
It's sorta like here a few weeks ago where all we could do is insult each other, no one could get their point across in that atmosphere. No thinking involved at all.
It seems all we want nowadays is more noise, take the gloves off and brawl. This only makes us less productive as we're wildly spouting this and that as fast as possible, but nothing else.
Think of target shooting, one with a .22 and the other with a shotgun. Both hit the target, but is that really the point?
I don't excuse the Democrats. But neither do I excuse Trump. Sauce for the goose....
I wasn't aware this had to be a partisan issue when I commented.
Isn't that silly? Blah, blah
The Dem's through out civility in the early 1980's. The GOP jettisoned it in 2016.
The Dem's can dish it out but they can't take it. The GOP waited far too long to
start fighting back.
You seem to be doing a good job proving my point 2tall...
Your story is a fictional fantasy which nobody still alive was part of. You've fondly
remembered stories of Tip O'Neal and the Gipper. Tip O'Neal hated Ronald Reagan
and he fought him on everything. Reagan would put together a plan and Tip would
publicly announce that it was dead on arrival before he even read it.
“He only works three to three-and-a-half hours a day. He doesn’t do his homework. He doesn’t read his briefing papers. It’s sinful that this man is president of the United States.”
Remember him telling Carly Fiorina that she was too ugly to be president?
We're now in an era whereby many are saying that the Democrats deserve the treatment that they are getting because they behaved so poorly in the Kavenaugh hearings.
Well, they had a good example to learn by with our insulter-in-chief.
I recall Trump criticizing her sour facial expression. Who wants a gloomy President?!
If you look at just the small box of Kavenaugh and RBG's successor, there is some Republican hypocrisy. Yet, there is far more than this small box.
Here is what you are ignoring - this acrimony had its origins years earlier in Obama's tenure. The Dems have been bashing the country club Repubs for a long time. And when Trump was elected, they resorted to some dishonest tactics. As just one example, think about your lying and leaking Adam Schiff. And what did Repubs do? Those such as Sessions rolled over and let it happen. Maybe Schiff should not have help concoct a hoax and instead have busied the committee with more pressing intelligence issues such as the IC's alarms about COVID.
It started earlier than the REussian hoax. Do your recall how Trump wanted to negotiate immigration reforms in the spirit of resolving a lingering issue? Trump met with the Dems to reach a deal friendly to everyone, but Dick Durbin torpedoes it by outing his "shithole country" remark, as part of the Dem strategy not to solve immigration but make Trump look like a racist.
Next is Nancy. But let's stop here.
Example to learn? In their quest for power, the Dems already knew infinitely more about dirty tricks, and they used many of them to try and oust the novice politician Trump.
Jone, I know you like congeniality. All of us would prefer such. However, one side is not very congenial. Given all that you have said, I suggest you write-in a vote for Jeff Sessions.
So it was the democrats bashing the snowflake republicans that got conservatives all knotted up in the underpants. Possible, but it was During obozo's term it was the republicans that nullified him from getting his pick through. That is the type of event that creates acrimony and retaliation. I'm sure there will be retaliation for the hypocrisy of the republican senators this time around too. That is what makes us so 'exceptional'.
Here is what you are ignoring - this acrimony had its origins years earlier in Obama's tenure. The Dems have been bashing the country club Repubs for a long time.
and republicans have turned 180 degrees
Democrats are claiming Republicans have all turned 180 degrees. What they fail to acknowledge is that they have done exacrly the same thing.
.... was During obozo's term it was the republicans that nullified him from getting his pick through."Obozo"? Seriously? (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/cheesy.gif) So the GPO senate was supposed to consent to a SC justice they really didn't want?
"Obozo"? Seriously? (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/cheesy.gif) So the GPO senate was supposed to consent to a SC justice they really didn't want?
Gee...I think this is called politics.
The US could learn a lot from the UK ..
Funniest samn thing:
Democrats are claiming Republicans have all turned 180 degrees. What they fail to acknowledge is that they have done exacrly the same thing.
That is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Many Dems are saying that if and when they control both Houses of Congress, they will increase the number of SC Justices and then install 'their kind' of Justices.
- - - - - - - -
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
But exactly how does Congress do this ?
Must it pass both Houses by simple majority vote ?
President cannot veto this ?
If the democrats can change the number lawfully than I will be all for it (Assuming Trump rams his pick through before the new senate is in place). They have good reason to do everything up to going nuclear in response to the republicans senator's naked hypocrisy, and blatant partisanship. That said, I wouldn't expect the dems to sweep into power in all 3 branches. If they did, it would be quite an indictment by the american people on the direction trump has been leading the nation.
I'm sure the Democrats are exploring all options. If they take the Senate, and Presidency this November, they may attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 59 giving Biden 50 new appointees.
Like others, I keep getting letters from Melania and Ivanka, as well as Donald.
CNN conducted a poll. Says 59% of the people want the next president to nominate the SC justice. 45% of the people in the poll said they are independent or a third party voter. I seriously doubt 45% of the people out there are close to being independent voters. How much did CNN pay for that poll? How many polls did they conduct before getting one they'd want to report on?I would say most people would prefer trump wait until after the election to install the next SC justice. It seems he won't do that though, he is going to cram that pick in immediately and change the makeup of the court. When trump sees an opening like this he takes full advantage if permitted.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-59-percent-think-president-elected-in-november-should-name-next-supreme-court-justice/ar-BB19m6a1?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
Trump needs to 'stack' the Supreme Court before the election is decided to try and bolster his chances if he actually loses the election. He'll fight tooth and nail as announced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIG9xPmg_FU
Trump needs to 'stack' the Supreme Court before the election is decided to try and bolster his chances if he actually loses the election. He'll fight tooth and nail as announced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIG9xPmg_FU
Trump needs to 'stack' the Supreme Court before the election is decided to try and bolster his chances if he actually loses the election. He'll fight tooth and nail as announced.
Four years ago anti Trump media put out stories he won't quietly go away if he loses the election and that he'll try something to take it. I see nothing has changed with them and their faithful readers.
This election has already been decided.
Joe is still nervous. He's hired hundreds of attorneys as part of a backup plan yet the media makes it sound like Trump is the guy that won't quietly go away. Hopefully Trump wins convincingly like last election to motivate Biden to quietly go away.
"Hopefully Trump wins convincingly".If polls are correct this time around, biden is up nationally by about 8 points it would seem. I have a hard time believing that. Nevertheless, if trump wins it is likely it won't be by much. What if biden actually does win convincingly on election night? Will the conservatives rebel and claim our election is fraudulent? Should venezuela send an armada over to threaten us and enforce an embargo?
Why else, 40+ days before election day, you never see Biden/Harris out there campaigning?
What you have is a highly edited TV ads. Heck, Harris won't even conduct an open press conference. Biden holds only orchestrated 'townhall' meetings with 10 cars, a couple of teleprompter, 6 paid *random* folks asking *random* questions and a couple of cue cards and an accompanying press group to give raving reviews of another powerful night for Joe Biden even if it only happens 3-4 days/week at the most.
The problems with the article below is that it takes a constitutional amendment to
change Supreme Court Justice terms. It's not unusual that a Dem doesn't know that.
Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years
http://ca.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3
The problems with the article below is that it takes a constitutional amendment to
change Supreme Court Justice terms.
I think that they are spending the entire time several hours per day toLets remember this assessment of the potential future president, so when/if he is in charge we can consider the USA's policies/sanctions/etc still a joke.
get Biden ready for a debate where he doesn't call anybody a lying dog
soldier pony or crap himself then rub through his hair plugs.
If they can't get him though a debate then they have to pull out and
it will be difficult for them to claim he's a high functioning idiot that
can have his staff run the country. If they get him through one debate
they can claim he won, the press will agree and he can say no more
debates because Trump is a bad orange man.
Sure?
..does not apply, as they would be in place for 18 years and not up for reelection.
By removing the concerns that come with reelection, judges can make their own
decisions independent from the desires of either special interest groups or the
masses.
Yes, because the founders/writers of the constitution wrote about what they
meant and why they wrote what they wrote. They put together a set of documents
called the federalist papers. These papers are available for regular people who
are not lefty's to read. The particular federalist paper that clarifies the constitution
on this is called Federalist #78
Trump needs to 'stack' the Supreme Court before the election is decided to try and bolster his chances if he actually loses the election. He'll fight tooth and nail as announced.By stack I guess we mean ~pack~ Take a look at the real picture----
Hamilton didn't want a Bill of Rights either, but we got them. The Federalist Papers remain a good insight into the minds of a few of the founders of our Constitution. It is a great reference but remains a limited, and contextual.
Did the Constitution provide for term limits for the reelection of the Executive?
Hamilton didn't want a Bill of Rights either, but we got them.
I think you are shotgunning here. Trying to throw a bunch of stuff against the wall
to see if any of it sticks. None of your arguments really addresses the fact that Judges
are appointed for life (with good behavior) and a constitutional amendment is the
only way to change that.
They would remain judges, just elsewhere.
The word on social media is Amy Coney Barrett may have adopted her two black kids from Haiti illegally and she should be investigated. We'll see if they use that as a stall tactic but if they can prove the kids were adopted illegally, will they make the judge give them up?Her positions on issues may not be that bad either from what I briefly read.
Her positions on issues may not be that bad either from what I briefly read.
I don't think attacking the lady on the basis of personal life is the way to go. She also has a child with down's syndrome. None of this changes the fact that certain republican senators are hypocrites to be called out such as lindsay graham
Fathertime!
FP
Trump 'n Co. doesn't use the same tactic to a vastly greater extent?
yeah right. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help us, Trump.
Trump 'n Co. doesn't use the same tactic to a vastly greater extent?
The word on social media is Amy Coney Barrett may have adopted her two black kids from Haiti illegally and she should be investigated.
She adopted them because she was racist
Watch the Demmies now claim that she can't be a Supreme
because she has kids at home.
Democrats don't know what to do.It is always a bit amusing to read the Tourette's syndrome like phony characterizations staunch conservative like yourself makes.
It's my belief they will fight everything, tell their base that Amy Coney Barrett
is the devil and will force women to have abortions in back alleys with coat
hangers.
The Dem's will protest and burn stuff.
Here is an article that lays out the various strategies the Dem's are weighing.
Democrats debate whether to engage - or withdraw - in Supreme Court fight
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Democrats-debate-whether-to-engage-or-withdraw-15599222.php
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris 'Strongly Oppose' Donald Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney BarrettGee ...what a surprise (http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Smileys/DarkB/undecided.gif)
Joe Biden (http://people.com/tag/joe-biden/) and Sen. Kamala Harris (http://people.com/tag/kamala-harris/) do not support President Donald Trump (http://people.com/tag/donald-trump/)'s Supreme Court nominee, federal judge Amy Coney Barrett. (http://people.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-everything-to-know/)http://people.com/politics/joe-biden-kamala-harris-strongly-oppose-trump-supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett/
Both Biden and Harris released statements on Saturday, voicing their opposition (http://joebiden.com/2020/09/26/the-u-s-supreme-court-statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden/#) and urging Congress to postpone any decisions on the seat until after the election.
"Trump's hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg's seat makes it clear: they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act & overturn Roe. This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans," Harris, 55, tweeted. "I strongly oppose Judge Barrett's nomination."
Biden, 77, echoed Harris' remarks. "Today, President Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat. She has a written track record of disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. She critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding the law in 2012," he said in a statement.
FP
Trump 'n Co. doesn't use the same tactic to a vastly greater extent?
Violent protests? Shouting down those they agree with? Attacking people leaving
the convention?
Violent protests? Shouting down those they agree with? Attacking people leaving
the convention?
Rioting, murder, destruction of property, civil unrest
The word on social media is Amy Coney Barrett may have adopted her two black kids from Haiti illegally and she should be investigated. We'll see if they use that as a stall tactic but if they can prove the kids were adopted illegally, will they make the judge give them up?
She adopted them because she was racist
I predicted it and sure enough it happened.
Where do these idiots find the limits of their decency? I cannot believe the appalling nature of these Democrats and their ilks and followers. Ibram Kendi said this about Amy Barrett’s adoption of the two Haitian kids she have.you are a victim of fake news. lets see if I can help you with the complete quote:
~ "Some White colonizers 'adopted' Black children. They 'civilized' these 'savage' children in the 'superior' ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity," ~
Unbelievable!
“I’m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently 'not racist' and the bots completely change what I’m saying to “White parents of kids of color are inherently racist.”
you are a victim of fake news. lets see if I can help you with the complete quote:
Kendi wrote “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.” He continued, “And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist.” He added, “I’m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently 'not racist' and the bots completely change what I’m saying to “White parents of kids of color are inherently racist.” These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda. Let’s not argue with them.”
Now that the quote is correct, I don't see it as productive to make this sort of statement at this time. This particular lady doesn't seem to be that bad, so I wouldn't want to see her made out to be a racist when she gets her due grilling.
This particular commentator Ibram X Kendi isn't of much relevance but his quote will be misused, misquoted, and used as a written screed to mischaracterize the preponderance of people other than conservatives. I hear his view, and there are parts of it that are sensible yet in the context of this woman they don't appear to apply.
Fathertime!
LMAO! How the heck can anything be fake news when I posted what the idiot posted in his Twitter page (http://mobile.twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1309918635738173440)word for word, which you repeated?!?!You posted a partial quote and stated it was in reference to barrett, which I've shown you it wasn't necessarily.
Saying somehow it isn’t important whether it is directed to ACB or not to dupe snowflakes at large doesn’t diminish what the idiot said. It is you who bit into this dandy hook, line and sinker!
I can’t believe liberals bow to idiots like Ibram these days.
Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.
You posted a partial quote and stated it was in reference to barrett, which I've shown you it wasn't necessarily.
the Ibram character is an unknown, and doesn't represent a wide audience. When barrett is getting grilled by democrats, if it is implied she is racist based on her adoption of the black children she will prevail and the democrats will look foolish. I don't think the democrat senators will go there as it isn't appropriate in this case. Her record should be reviewed. Down the road, I think she is going to make rulings that I may not agree with but from what I've seen she isn't extreme.
Fathertime!
BU should dismiss the professor. However, he is probably tenured, so typical of liberal university professors these days. Question: why would parents pay $60,000/yr just in tuition to have a child educated by anarchists?
The Dem's have decided that it's far too dangerous with Covid and everything(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk100820dAPR20201008014504.jpg)
to meet with the nominee and have hearings etc.
The coronavirus infects the Supreme Court hearing as 2 Senate Judiciary Committee senators test positive for COVID-19 and Chuck Schumer calls for a halt
Someone might want to tell Kamala Harris that she needs to get her American history straight. She claimed that Abraham Lincoln said it would be wrong to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that opened up 27 days before the 1864 election. That is nonsense. Lincoln said no such thing. Furthermore, back then, Congress was in recess from July 4 until December 5, i.e., until after the election, so there would have been no point in nominating anyone to fill the vacancy before the election. Also, Lincoln submitted his nominee the day after Congress returned. He did not wait for the new Congress to take office (which, back then, did not happen until March).Forum blog
Candidates are nominated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Juridical_powers) by the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary), which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-1) Confirmation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent#United_States) by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-1) The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Pelosi warned ... women will be forced to return to a time when simply "being a woman" made it obscenely difficult to receive adequate health services.And then mugged real big for the cameras......
And she has bounced back yet again - with one giant leap.
Let's see if McConnell and Trump are capable of acting with common decency, deliberation, and due diligence, or simply bow to desperation and hypocrisy.
Would it be hypocritical of them wanting to nominate Garland before an election,
but not wanting to nominate Amy Barret?
No, not in the least. This is a completely different situation.
It's exactly the same except that the President and the Senate majority are from
the same party.
The Dem's always fight GOP nominations. The GOP used to vote for qualified
Dem nominations. Justice Ginsberg is an excellent example. Those days are
gone forever.
The Dem's never, ever, ever feel hypocritical no matter what they say or do.
The Repubs refused to consider Obama's choice 4 years ago because they said the next president should pick the candidate. What are they saying now? Who're the hypocrites?
Who're the hypocrites?
The Republicans are for sure, no argument from me.
Now the Democrats are as well..... but you argue it's totally different.
Let's look the other side.
The Dem's said "Do your jobs and vote for or against this nominee!"
Now they are like a virgin school girl saying "wait, wait, wait!!"
They are totally hypocrites saying that we should wait for
the election.
Hey, no means no. ;)
mhr7,
My question was if it was hypocritical for Republicans to change their
narrative, in your opinion was it hypocritical for the Democrats to do
the same?
In my opinion they've both been hypocritical in this example.
Udachi!
Bill
I understood the question and yes, I would agree with you. No sense of humor tonight about school girls saying wait, wait?
Anyone watching the Coney Barrett confirmation hearings?
Mike Lee is making a pontificating ass of himself.
Anyone watching the Coney Barrett confirmation hearings?Enough to see that the Democrats were asking questions and stating opinions that had nothing to do with the appointment of a justice...just political theatrics as usual.
You mean something like James Comey? Start at 1:22 ...Makes a good point [pontificating or not]
Mike Lee is making a pontificating ass of himself.
Most important she has never assulted anyone sexually.
How do you know this ?
This was a puzzling moment when Judge Amy Coney Barrett could not clearly answer as to whether or not she knew Trump's efforts and many statements to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would strike down ACA.
it's all over conservative news as well.
Billy,
I guess she reads or views no media at all since it's all over conservative news as well.
As smart as she is I can't see her voting for Trump unless she is really and truly in the dark.
I guess she reads or views no media at all since it's all over conservative news as well.
As smart as she is I can't see her voting for Trump unless she is really and truly in the dark.
Billy,
I guess she reads or views no media at all since it's all over conservative news as well.
As smart as she is I can't see her voting for Trump unless she is really and truly in the dark.
She is likely briefed by her staff on key developments, Also, her husband is able to speak. She has friends too, imagine that.
Many ways to learn about the news. In fact, given the bias of news sources such as CNN, it is perhaps better to obtain news from someone who can synthesize the issues and events.
So you think being smart and voting for Trump are mutually exclusive. Your comment is right up there with Hillary's "basket of deplorables." You wear your badge of elitist bigotry proudly. Such an attitude prompts a very insidious form of prejudice and racism, i. e., lowered expectations.
Which is probably why he's willing to take a knee to those who are felons and thugs.
BLM is not in Italy. However, Europe has some radical parties, both on the left and right, particularly the right. I could be wrong because I don't follow Euro politics. Radical they may be, one must respect the fact these fringe parties have been duly elected as part of their national parliamentarian elections.
EU members, correct me if I am wrong, but I like this aspect of your multi-party system.
Pea brain Mitch McConnell aka the Turtle decides to push the stimulus package
through before the Barrett vote. I mean what could go wrong??! Obviously he should
do the Barrett vote first and then make sure that anybody who voted against Barrett
had zero pork in the bill.
McConnell says he’ll try to move $500 billion stimulus
package before Barrett vote
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcconnell-says-will-try-to-move-500-billion-stimulus-package-before-barrett-vote-11602618987
She is likely briefed by her staff on key developments, Also, her husband is able to speak. She has friends too, imagine that.
Many ways to learn about the news. In fact, given the bias of news sources such as CNN, it is perhaps better to obtain news from someone who can synthesize the issues and events.
So you think being smart and voting for Trump are mutually exclusive. Your comment is right up there with Hillary's "basket of deplorables."
BLM is not in Italy. However, Europe has some radical parties, both on the left and right, particularly the right. I could be wrong because I don't follow Euro politics. Radical they may be, one must respect the fact these fringe parties have been duly elected as part of their national parliamentarian elections.
EU members, correct me if I am wrong, but I like this aspect of your multi-party system.
I'm all over the place, from CNN to Fox, to AlJazeera, to RT, even some of the more radical conservative radio shows.
What's your top 3 that you have confidence in and 'trust'.
And who/what source would they use? Where do you go for 'neutral' news? Heck, I'd be interested in sources you are confident in. I'm all over the place, from CNN to Fox, to AlJazeera, to RT, even some of the more radical conservative radio shows.
This was a puzzling moment when Judge Amy Coney Barrett could not clearly answer as to whether or not she knew Trump's efforts and many statements to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would strike down ACA.
I can't imagine her being that isolated from the goings-on. I'm not calling her a liar, but do find it hard to swallow. To answer that she has seen and heard such statements would have been fine and totally understandable. She must have been really shocked at all the tweet posters and other Trump and GOP statements to that effect. Ditto regarding abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGX10CneMVU
Many on the left are now calling for the the removal of Dianne Feinstein from the Committee because of her kind remarks to Graham.
Collins of Maine said she will vote against to be consistent with being against Garland in election year.I understand that Ms Collins is in danger of not being re-elected because she is a Republican.
Republicans are sore losers. 3 Republican Senators voted against Ruth.
Actually only one, Susan Collins, who faces a strong challenge to her re-election.
Collins explained her vote as being consistent with the Senate decision regarding Merrick Garland. In 2018 Collins gave a very compelling explanation of her support of Kavanaugh.
Democrat leaders said Republicans will pay (hint hint ....packing the court).
Actually only one, Susan Collins, who faces a strong challenge to her re-election.
Collins explained her vote as being consistent with the Senate decision regarding Merrick Garland. In 2018 Collins gave a very compelling explanation of her support of Kavanaugh.
Democrat leaders said Republicans will pay (hint hint ....packing the court).
He said Ruth, as in RBG the Republicans voted for her even though
they knew that she was an ACLU liberal she was qualified. The Dem's
haven't been civil about the Supreme court since Robert Bork.